• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education Self Study Report Fall 07-Spring 08 QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. Table of Contents

1. AN OVERVIEW 1.1 Introducing the Faculty of Education, Dean Paul Shaker 1.2 Historical Perspectives, Professor Emeritus, Meguido Zola 1.3 A Reader’s Guide, Associate Dean, Academic, Suzanne de Castell 1.4 Positions and Locations, Associate Dean, Administration, David Paterson 1.5 Working Here: APSA and CUPE Staff 1.6 Essential Facts and Figures, Assistant to the Dean, Donalda Meyers

2. “THINKING OF THE WORLD” – INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS IN THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION 2.1 Learning to Think of the World: International Programs Report Director International Programs, Ian Andrews and the International Programs Committee and Support Staff

3. LEARNING TO TEACH: TEACHING TO LEARN – TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Pedagogy as Profession: Director, Professional Programs, Stephen Smith 3.2 Professional Programs Report: Program Committee and Support Staff

4. AN INTERDISCIPLINARY FIELD: UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS IN THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION 4.1 Opening Doors and Building Bridges: Director, Undergraduate Programs, David Paterson 4.2 Undergraduate Students in the FOE: PhD student RA, Rob Mc Tavish

5. ADVANCED STUDY, ADVANCED PRACTICE: GRADUATE PROGRAMS IN THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION 5.0 Program Report: Director, Graduate Programs, Heesoon Bai, Associate Director, GPC, Michelle Schmidt, Program Coordinators, GPC and Program Staff 5.1 Student Voices: Graduate Students in the FOE: PhD student RA Cher Hill 5.2 Scholarships and Student Funding: Director, GP Committee and Staff 5.3 EGSA: The Education Graduate Students’ Association 5.4 SFU Educational Review: Co-Directors, Joanne Provencal and Mark Weiler

6. EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITIES: FIELD PROGRAMS IN THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION 6.1 Communities and Markets: A Delicate Balance: Acting Director, Field Programs, Lannie Kanevsky 6.2 Field Programs Report: Program Team, Faculty Associates and Support Staff

7. THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE: SCHOLARSHIP, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 7.1 Building Capacity, Achieving Excellence: Research Coordinator, Phil Winne: Research Grant Facilitators Tracey Leacock and Geniva Liu

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 2 8. MAKING IT WORK: MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY, SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS IN THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION 8.1 Revisioning the Center for Educational Technology: CET Advisory Committee

Table of Contents (cont’d)

9. FRENCH PROGRAMS IN THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION: ADDRESSING ACTION PLAN ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES 9.1 Responding to Teacher Shortage: Expansion in PDP 9.2 Meeting Needs: Graduate Programs Developments 9.3 Consolidating Curriculum: Undergraduate Initiatives 9.4 Reaching Out: Field Programs for French 9.5 “Avec le monde en tête”: International Programs Reports provided by the Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs (OFFA) Associate Director Danielle Arcand

10. EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS AND ADVANCEMENT IN THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION 10.1 External Communications in the Faculty of Education 10.2 Advancement, Tracy London, FOE Advancement Officer

11. CLIMATE AND CULTURE IN THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION: THEN AND NOW 11.1 Self-Study Report---Culture: Suzanne de Castell

12. A MATTER OF FOCUS: DEVELOPING FOCUS QUESTIONS DURING THE FOE SELF STUDY 12.1 A Matter of Focus: Developing “Focus Questions” 12.2 Field Programs on “Focus Questions” 12.3 International Programs on “Focus Questions” 12.4 Graduate Programs on “Focus Questions”

13. CHARTING A COURSE 13.1 The Road Ahead: Dean Paul Shaker

APPENDICES:

Appendix A: Full Curriculum Vitae: Faculty Appendix B: Six Academic Elements of International Programs (Chapter 2) Appendix C: A PDP Teaching Assignment/Staff Resources (Chapter 3) Appendix D: UGP Three yr Academic Plan/BGS/ FAL (Chapter 4) Appendix E: Field Programs Three yr Academic (Chapter 6) Appendix F: Detailed Data on Competitive Funding/Research Productivity Report (Chapter 7) Appendix G: Staff Feedback – Issues/Activities/Projects (Chapter 11) Appendix H: Self Study Questionnaire (Chapter 11)

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 3 Faculty of Education Self Study Report

1. An Overview

1.1 Introducing the Faculty of Education, Paul Shaker, Dean, Faculty of Education

No one questions the fundamental importance of education to society and individuals on both spiritual and material grounds. Many, however, question the specific institutions through which we deliver education in a formal manner. Among those questions are the place of this human service profession in the academy since, on one hand, some argue there is no distinct discipline or academic content knowledge at the core of teaching, while others claim that the profession is among the most challenging of pursuits and very much in need of the resources and form of the university if it is to be best conceived and delivered. These same tensions exist within departments and faculties of education with disciplinary purists insisting that the nascent science of education, and its philosophical foundations, deserve research in their own right; while other faculty see themselves as social reformers and prefer an emphasis on service to the education profession and its home institution, the public schools. All these tensions are acted out at Simon Fraser University - within and across our Faculties - as they are in a thousand other North American colleges and university. There is, at the same time, a local flavour to our drama and the elements of this serve as an introduction to this self- study.

A recent history of SFU, Radical Campus, traces the origins of the university, including the Faculty of Education (FOE), which was a founding faculty of SFU along with arts and sciences. Some early influences and strategic choices that were made in the first years after 1965 opening of the campus have continuing impact on FOE today. These include the non-departmentalized structure of the Faculty; the curricular openness of the Professional Development Program; and the differentiated staffing model for conducting teacher education. All these approaches remain intact. All were no doubt coloured, as well, by the temper of the times since in many ways SFU was a “child of the Sixties” and its founding faculty created the institution with full acknowledgement of the social values around North America at that time. SFU is the only Canadian university created de novo, that is, without the guidance of a church or parent university. Although the passage of time and the passing of people have seen the tone of the institution mature, there still remains an appetite for innovation and iconoclasm in the Faculty of Education that shows itself in policy and practice.

As FOE developed the early mission was expanded in a number of ways. For example, the Faculty extended its graduate programming through the doctoral level in the 1980s. Later it developed an innovative series of Field Programs, which today provide inservice for hundreds of BC teachers in the form of graduate diplomas and MEd degrees. As the 1990s went on, what are now titled “premium fee programs” in our graduate area were developed to deliver masters and doctor of education degrees outside the provincial funding umbrella. All these expansions of our mission have met with a positive response and are constrained in their growth not by lack of demand, but by our infrastructural limitations and our desire not to grow at the expense of quality in our offerings. Most recently this spirit of invention is manifest in a direct entry Bachelor of Education degree through which first year students can immediately begin work on their professional development. Also we have launched a major expansion of our tenure-line faculty and grown our PhD programs proportionately.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 4 Both the number of doctoral programs and the number of candidates admitted across the board are at all time highs.

The Faculty of Education has not developed at the expense of its core values, but in ways that honour them. Our service across the province and internationally continues at historically high levels and offers opportunity for educators from developing countries to study with us, as well as encouraging our preservice teachers and our faculty to attend to demands around BC and in other nations. We continue to express our desire to be a contributing part of our society through our work with First Nations communities in a variety of programs, including unique offerings like the Developmental Standard Term Certificate that expedites the availability of indigenous language teachers to classrooms. Whether in areas such as service to First Nations communities, or the needs of teachers, administrators, and school boards, citizens in BC look to this Faculty of Education to hear their concerns and find a way to help.

While the Faculty continues to amass this record of engagement with the profession, it has, at the same time, grown in stature in research, scholarship, and contribution to the global academic community. The vitas of current and past faculty document an exceptional record of publications, grantsmanship, honours, and societal leadership. SFU is a research leader among comprehensive universities in Canada and FOE maintains pace with its peer units in the university. In the past five years, for example, five projects have been funded above the threshold of one million dollars. These initiatives include work in educational simulations and games, self-regulated learning, educational neuroscience, Imaginative Education for indigenous communities and our outreach to immigrant communities, Friends of Simon. The honours and positions faculty have earned since the last external review include a number of the highest leadership roles in the American Psychological Society and the Philosophy of Education Society as well as ongoing membership in national academies and other similar recognitions. To sustain and expand this level of accomplishment, the Research Opportunities Committee, along with the grants coordinator and an expanded staff have launched a vigorous process of investment in building research capacity in the Faculty over the past two years.

Our budgets have consistently been balanced, our facilities are adequate and improving, our enrollments are strong and, as discussed above, there is much to celebrate regarding the Faculty. Nonetheless, we look forward to this external review and are quite aware of challenges that face us. It can be said that these unresolved issues seem to be a part of our legacy as much as some of our positive traits are. Earlier self studies document tensions of the type described above with respect to the role of a faculty of education; as well as fractiousness that relates to categories of individuals along with incidents of incivility. There is a history of pressure to subdivide the Faculty and an amorphous but ongoing anxiety about the breadth of faculty participation in our governance process. Internal communications and the intellectual forum provided within the Faculty are areas of longstanding concern. With the number of innovative programs we manage, there is a constant need to monitor academic quality and rigor.

One also gets a sense of progress from reading past reviews and evidence that a number of issues have been identified and addressed. The FOE has arrived at mission and vision statements, for example, through a broadly based consultative process. These have begun to be employed in renewing policy and the shaping of other administrative decisions. Also due to past reviews, introductory seminars for PhD students are now offered in several of our programs. An executive position has been created to foster the integration of new faculty. This, too, is a response to past recommendations. An at-large position has also been added to the Executive Committee to amplify the voices of faculty members and broaden participation. The Faculty has launched a major effort in external communications that has internal implications as well. This type of information sharing has, we hope, helped build community of a kind recommended by visitors from several years ago while projecting our reputation beyond Burnaby Mountain.

Organizations such as a faculty of education have a spiritual centre consisting of a core of traditions, values and a sense of purpose. There is consensus that Professional Programs, with its annual influx of committed master teachers to serve as faculty associates and its semi-annual intake of hopeful new teachers is a key manifestation of this core for the Faculty of Education. As this self study emerges we can say that we are in tune with these constituencies and that the energy that flows from schoolchildren through their master teachers and on to university students with a vocation to teach flows through this Faculty as well. Our

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 5 research and scholarship interact with this aspect of our mission. We remain true to our origins in this way among others: our work has a home in the larger society and, through teaching, a means of expression. A spirit of hope inspires our work and is renewed by those who come to study with us or teach with us as peers in this faculty of education.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 6 Insert Faculty of Education Org Chart Here

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 7 Faculty Research Profiles

Amundsen, Cheryl Associate Professor Cheryl Amundsen is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser University. Her primary program area is Educational Technology and Learning Design. Previous and ongoing research has focused on how university professors develop pedagogical knowledge in relationship to their subject matter, how they come to understand teaching (and graduate supervision), how they make instructional decisions including the integration of various technology applications and the effects of these from the learner's perspective.

Bai, Heesoon Director Graduate Programs, Faculty Heesoon Bai is an Associate Professor at Simon Fraser University in Canada. She has published widely in academic journals and edited volumes on topics including environmental education, zen aesthetics, social responsibility and democratic moral agency. She was a recipient of the Simon Fraser University Excellence in Teaching Award in 2003, and in the same year, she also received the Roger Hamill environmental educator’s award. Professor Bai is active in the renewal and revitalization of Philosophy of Education in Canada and elsewhere. She is the Editor of Paideusis, Journal of Canadian Philosophy of Education Society (http://journals.sfu.ca/paideusis). She is also a Faculty Associate in the Graduate Liberal Studies Program.

Research Interests: Philosophy of Education, Applied and Comparative Epistemology, Ethics and Moral Education, Ecophilosophy, Ecopsychology, Consciousness studies, Daoist and Buddhist Philosophies.

Barrow, Robin Professor, Philosophy of Education, FRSC My research is primarily in the areas of epistemology and moral philosophy. Particular areas of interest include: educational theory, humanities, the problematic nature of empirical inquiry into human activity, and the role of higher education.

Bingham, Charles Assistant Professor, Curriculum Theory In my research, I investigate philosophical perspectives on curriculum and education. I focus on such themes as recognition, authority, and self-fashioning as these themes become meaningful in curricular and educational interactions. As well, I focus on critical multicultural practices, philosophies of language, and literary renditions of school experience. Some of the thinkers that inform my work are Friedrich Nietzsche, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Franz Fanon, Jessica Benjamin, and Mikhail Bakhtin.

Blenkinsop, Sean Assistant Professor, Co-Director, Imaginative Education Research Group Philosophy of education; imagination in teaching and learning; ecology; relational epistemologies; theories of place; existentialism; continental philosophy; educational theory and practice; experiential and outdoor education; care; gender theory; social/ecological justice; international issues; science education; drama education.

Campbell, Stephen Assistant Professor Dr. Campbell’s scholarly focus is on the historical and psychological development of mathematical thinking from an embodied perspective informed by Kant, Husserl, and Merleau-Ponty. His research incorporates methods of psychophysics and cognitive neuroscience as a means for operationalising affective and cognitive models of math anxiety and concept formation.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 8 Cassidy, Wanda Associate Professor My research focus is in law-related education and its intersection with social studies and citizenship education. An important dimension of my work involves examining those values and beliefs that underpin the legal system and are instrumental in developing a just and caring society; these include the ethics of care, conceptions of diversity and inclusion, and notions of social responsibility. I am also the Director of the Centre for Education, Law and Society, an endowed centre established to improve the legal literacy of children and youth through a program of research, teaching, curriculum development, and community-based initiatives.

Chinnery, Ann Assistant Professor, Teacher Education My research addresses philosophical and ethical issues in teacher education, especially recent shifts in thinking about rights and responsibilities; the practical complexities of classroom dialogue in pluralist democracies; and preparing teachers for work in increasingly diverse classrooms.

Dagenais, Diane Associate Professor My scholarship is situated in the field of applied linguistics and focuses specifically on the study of language education. I have developed an interest in issues of language learning in contexts of linguistic and sociocultural diversity as they relate to immigration, bilingualism, multilingualism, literacy, second language and bilingual (immersion) education. I have pursued three lines of work over the years: 1) Family and school language interactions and literacy practices among children of diverse origins; 2) representations of multilingualism and language education constructed by young children, adolescents, their teachers and immigrant parents; 3) educational change processes and innovations in language teaching. de Castell, Suzanne Associate Dean, Administration, Professor Literacy, new media and educational technologies, epistemology, gender and educational equity, digital games and learning.

Egan, Kieran Professor, Educational Theory My areas of interest include educational and curriculum theory, conceptions of development in education, and the way cognitive tools shape our learning and understanding. Current work is funded by SSHRC.

Fels, Lynn Assistant Professor, Arts Education My research interests are focused on arts education, arts-based inquiry-specifically performative inquiry, teacher education and professional development, curriculum development and instruction, performance and technology, arts education across the curriculum, arts for social change, and writing as inquiry and performance.

Fettes, Mark Assistant Professor, Educational Theory My theoretical work is focused on understanding the dynamics, or “ecology”, of language, imagination and community, and its implications for educational policy and practice. This is interlinked with collaborative action research in various contexts, including First Nation communities and the Esperanto language community. I currently hold grants from the President’s Research fund, SSHRC, and the Esperantic Studies Foundation.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 9 Geva-May, Iris Professor Iris Geva-May has recently been honored by her inclusion in the World’s Who’s Who for her contribution to international comparative policy studies. She has been Professor of Policy Studies in the Doctoral Leadership Program, and Associate in the Program of Public Policy and Department of Political Science at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, since 2000. Formerly, she was affiliated with the Department of International Affairs, School of Political Science, Haifa University, Israel. She was Visiting Professor at a number of Graduate Schools of Public Policy such as UC Berkeley, US, (1993, 1995), Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, (1997, 1998), Kyoto University, Japan (2000), National University of Singapore (1999), Central European University, Budapest (1999), Tel Aviv University, Israel (2000), Hebrew University, Jerusalem (2004), and Honorary Professor at Plymouth University, UK 2000-2006.

Grimmett, Peter Professor My research in curriculum and teacher education focuses on how practitioners construct the requisite professional knowledge and skills to do their work competently. I study how teachers are affected by processes like reflection and action research, etc., and by the socio-political-cultural contexts in which they do their work. I recently examined demographic trends to project a shortage of teachers and administrators in BC schools from 2003 on. This long-term research program has been regularly funded by SSHRC since 1985. I am now a co-investigator of a Major Collaborative Research Initiative (funded by SSHRC) looking at the impact of policy changes on condition of teaching in schools in five metropolitan areas of Canada (Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Saskatoon, and Vancouver).

Han, Huamei Assistant Professor Research Interests: Language ideology and practices in immigrant settlement and in the globalized political economy Language use and identity construction in multilingual settings, particularly among ethnolinguistic minorities in multilingual schools and workplaces Language, ethnicity and religion in the global spread of evangelical Christianity The application and impact of Expressive Writing pedagogy on mono- and bilinguals

Heilgenberg, Kerstin Limited Term Lecturer, Foundations of Academic Literacy Academic literacy is the prevalent focus in my teaching and research. The acquisition process of academic culture in higher education has been at the core of my interest for the last few years in combination with an interest for Wenger’s Communities of Practice and Engeström’s interpretations of Activity Theory. Other research interests include the continuing internationalisation of higher education, international education, cultural studies and minority studies.

Horvath, Adam Professor, Counselling Psychology Research Interests: Counselling and therapy relationships. Counselling process, Family and couples counselling, Counselling theory. Attributions and narrative changes in counselling. Current Research Projects:Couples counselling process research: Measuring couples' working alliance, Patterns of within couples alliance, Changes in counselling goals and outcomes over time, Relation of proximal and distal outcomes, Reframing interventions and their consequences.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 10 Hoskyn, Maureen Assistant Professor Current Research Interests: Individual and developmental relations between executive function and early learning for young children, aged 3 to 8 years. *This research includes analyses of factors that contribute to executive function, specifically, working memory, inhibitory control and a) writing difficulties of young children and b)literacy development of trilingual, immigrant children in French Immersion programs. Recent projects also involve neuroimaging of cognitive processes that underlie reading for children with developmental dyslexia.

Ilieva, Roumiana Assistant Professor Areas of Research Interest: The integration of immigrants, minorities and international students in educational settings with special emphasis on culture(s) and instructional materials in ESL classrooms Constructions of professional identities of non-native English speakers teaching EFL Sociocultural, poststructural, critical and psychoanalytical perspectives on second language learning, pedagogy, and curriculum

Jacquet, Marianne Assistant Professor My scholarship focuses on the following themes with respect to diversity: intercultural education, multiculturalism policy, cultural and religious accommodation in school, ethics of diversity, teacher education and educational leadership. I am conducting research regarding the social representations of diversity through discourse analysis of various stakeholders in education (students-teachers, teachers, administrators). In another research, I am addressing issues of integration of visible minorities in Francophone minority school contexts. My theoretical framework is informed by literature addressing the construction of difference, critical multiculturalism and critical pedagogy.

Kanevsky, Lannie Associate Professor Vygotsky’s theory of development provides a foundation for my scholarship and much of my teaching. My research on the development of gifted children (with past and current funding from SSHRCC) examines the qualities of gifted students’ learning. Cultural-historical concepts and processes are at the centre of my work examining individual differences in learning and learning potential, and their implications for educational practices. My current research focuses on concept development while students are engaged in problem-based learning in Grade 4 Health Science Units.

Kaufman, David Professor Educational technology, teaching and learning in higher education, gaming and simulation for learning, problem-based learning, medical education, continuing professional development.

Keats, Patrice Assistant Professor, Counselling Psychology Program I have two main research interests--traumatic stress studies and counsellor education. My primary scholarly work focuses on the effects of witnessing trauma firsthand and vicariously (e.g., photographic or film images, written accounts from survivors, viewing evidence of a disaster). This research leads to a greater understanding about secondary traumatic stress (STS) symptoms and coping with traumatic material. Secondarily, I am researching aspects of counsellor education as they relate to the culture of counselling and methods used to teach theory and practice. Other research interests include: visuality, somatic psychotherapies, counselling children, cultural studies, qualitative research methodology, and expressive group-based trauma treatments (e.g., therapeutic enactment). I currently maintain a private counselling practice that is focused on trauma related issues using group and individual therapy practices. Additionally, I offer supervision for counsellors in the field.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 11 Kelly, Vicki Assistant Professor My research interests are in holistic and aesthetic education as well as indigenous education with a focus on: indigenous knowledge and epistemologies, indigenous language and culture revitalization, holistic learning, the integration of the arts in education, art therapy, transformative education, and spirituality in education. I am also interested in arts-based narrative and arts-informed research methodologies

Laitsch, Daniel Assistant Professor My research interests relate to the use and misuse of research to effect change in education policy and practice. I am particularly interested in assessment and accountability policy in K-12 education, and the relationship to education funding and outcomes.

LaRocque, Linda Associate Professor, Educational Leadership My approach to research is interpretive and collaborative, with an underlying commitment to understanding how educational leadership and policy can contribute to the development of inclusive and respectful schools supportive of student learning. Recently I have been particularly interested in working with schools in which the student population is ethnically, linguistically and socio-economically diverse. Notions of collaboration, community, and the ethics of care and justice inform my analyses.

Leacock, Tracey LT Assistant Professor, Grants Facilitator, Adjunct Professor My primary research interest is investigating how (technology-mediated) writing contributes to learning. For example how do teaching methods such as asynchronous conferencing affect students' ability to evaluate their learning and adapt their studying? This work spans the fields of educational technology, self-regulated learning (SRL - an area of educational psychology), and academic literacy. An important consideration in this work is how to support faculty in new ways of teaching. I am part of The Learning Kit Project, which has developed specialized software (gStudy, WebQuestionnaire, Log Analyzer, etc.) to both foster SRL and provide valuable trace data that researchers can use to better understand what learners actually do when studying (www.learningkit.sfu.ca). I am also working with the eLearning Research and Assessment Network (eLera) studying issues of quality in digital learning resources (www.elera.net).

Le Mare, Lucy Associate Professor My interests lie in the area of social and emotional development; the impact of early deprivation on development; early school adjustment in mainstream and diverse (e.g., Aboriginal, immigrant, early deprived, and other) populations. My research currently is funded by a grant from the Hospital for Sick Children Foundation, an SFU SSHRC Small Grant, and Health Canada.

Liljedahl, Peter Assistant Professor Instances of creativity, insight, and discovery in mathematics teaching and learning; mathematics and affect; professional growth of teachers; mathematical problem solving; numeracy; instructional design.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 12 Ling, Michael Senior Lecturer My research interests are primarily in four overlapping domains: The History of Ideas, with a particular interest in the histories of social, cultural, philosophical, and educational ideas, and the history of teaching. The Anthropology of Education, which includes everything from socio-cultural issues in societies, communities, and classrooms (eg diversity) to the 'cultures’ of teaching and learning. The Arts, Arts Education, and Aesthetics, which includes the history of these topics, along with contemporary theories and ideas, including so-called 'popular culture' and its place in children's lives. Qualitative Research Methods, with a particular interest in the development, experimentation, and use of such methods as they relate to teacher-inquiry, and teachers-as-researchers.

MacDonald, Margaret Assistant Professor, Early Childhood Education Within the broad and exciting field of Early Childhood Education, my two primary research areas include Pedagogical Documentation and Intergenerational Teaching and Learning. My research has explored pedagogical documentation as it relates to image, formative assessment and responsive curriculum development. My funded projects include the use of pedagogical documentation in early childhood classroom environments (Kindergarten and grade 1) and in clinical settings among mothers with preterm infants in hospital care. My research on Intergenerational Teaching and Learning has included investigations of Shared Reading Programs and supportive strategies for young learners. Most recently this has included intergenerational teaching and learning strategies within a First Nations Heritage Language Revitalization Program.

MacKinnon, Allan Associate Professor, Science Education My scholarly interests focus on the nature and role of practical experience in learning to teach, science education, the use of interactive television in teacher education, and, more recently, international development and science education reform at the tertiary level in South East Asia. My research has been funded by 3 standard and 1 small SSHRC research grants (in 1991, 1993, 1994 and 1997).

MacLean, Jan Limited Term Lecturer My research focuses on finding ways that the arts can be used to promote whole inclusion of students with diverse needs through developing aesthetic literacy.

Madoc-Jones, Geoffrey Assistant Professor, Language Arts My research interests include: Language Art Education, Hermeneutics, Philosophy of Education, Poetry, History of Literacy, B.C. Literature and Contemporary Welsh Literature. My present research is being funded by a President's Research Grant. The project is titled: Literacy Education and Endangered Languages: The Welsh and Canadian Experiences Compared.

Mamchur, Carolyn Professor, Language Arts Research Interests I am most concerned with education as a means of engaging students in meaningful work and whatever that entails. Two main specific areas of interest and research dominate my professional life; (1) the teaching of writing in secondary schools with a focus on editing strategies and using student work as curriculum, and (2) individual learning styles which meet student needs.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 13 Marshall, Elizabeth Assistant Professor My research focuses on representations of gender and sexuality in children's and young adult literature. I am particularly interested in constructions of girlhood and study textual representations of "the girl" in a range of cultural texts produced for or read by youth, including fairy tales, series fiction, women's memoir and adolescent fiction.

Marshall, Steve Assistant Professor The main focus of my research is on Sociolinguistics and Education, in particular, how language, migration and identity impact upon learning in educational and social contexts. In my research, I attempt to explain how individuals learn through important transitions in their lives: for example, the transitions that come with migration or with moving from one learning culture to another. Transitional agencies: structure, agency, reflexivity & knowledgeability (Giddens, 1984). I have adapted Giddens’ structuration theory (1984) to look at how individuals exercise their agencies (as learners) within structures (learning cultures, institutions, genres) and in transition between structures.

Moore, Danièle Associate Professor, Educational Theory Research interests: educational sociolinguistics and language acquisition bilingualism, multilingualism and immigration second and third language acquisition, second and third script acquisition code-switching and bilingual interactions in families and in the classroom language revitalization language policies, European language Portfolio (Council of Europe) French as a second language

Nesbit, John Associate Professor Research Interests: Self-regulated learning with multimedia resources Research methodologies for log analysis Learning from concept maps Learning object evaluation Collaborative evaluation Adaptive learning systems

Neufeld, Paul Associate Professor, Reading and Special Education My research is inspired by broad questions about how best to address the needs of students for whom school is often challenging and whom schools have historically not supported well. More specifically, my research focuses on the areas of reading development and instruction of English language learners and on the historical emergence, practice, and ongoing development of the constructs of learning disabilities and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in school contexts.

Nilson, Michelle Assistant Professor My scholarly work revolves around the evaluation and research of: Higher education governance and policy and its impact on access, collegiality, affordability, teacher education, and post-secondary participation. The use of methods from biology as indicators of health and stress in campus environments. The development and training of assessment specialists and educational leaders in the use of research.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 14 O'Neill, Kevin Associate Professor My work involves using the Internet to help K-12 students and teachers to better understand disciplinary forms of writing and thinking. For the past several years, my research has revolved around "telementoring" - a unique practice in which knowledgeable adult volunteers work with small teams of students for extended periods of time, to support their work on ambitious classroom investigations. In past work, I demonstrated how this approach could help students learn about scientific research and argumentation. One of my latest projects, funded by the Canadian Council on Learning, involves Grade 11 Social Studies students learning about the discipline of history by investigating whether or not Canada has become a more compassionate country over the last 100 years, with the guidance of volunteer historians.

Paterson, David Director, Undergraduate Programs, Associate Dean, Administration Dr. Paterson is Director for Undergraduate Programs and special advisory to the Dean on Surrey campus development. He remains active in the community of Canadian Counsellors currently serving as past president for the Canadian Counselling Association.

Popadiuk, Natalee Assistant Professor, Counselling Psychology Program

Richmond, Stuart Professor, Art Education My research focuses on aesthetics and visual art in education with particular reference to aesthetic education and the philosophy of the curriculum.

Sabatier, Cecile Assistant Professor, Educational Sociolinguistics Research Interests: Language Learning Second and Third Language Acquisition Bilingual Education and Language policies Multilingualism and Immigration Classroom interactions Teacher Education French as a second language

Samier, Eugenie Associate Professor My general scholarly interests are in philosophy of administration and leadership, international comparative educational administration, Weberian studies, organisational culture and aesthetics, administrative ethics, the literary and cinematic critique of administration and leadership, and history and biography of administration and leadership. More specific interests in Weberian studies including critique of bureaucracy, administrative change and reform, the New Public Management critique, authority styles, ethics, and the transformation of the cultural sphere including the rationalisation of the university; administrative changes in transition states.

Schmidt, Michele Assistant Professor Research interests: Aboriginal University PreparatIon Program Evaluation, Funded by the Community Trust Endowment Fund Parenting & School Project An ethnographic exploration of teachers’ understanding of classroom assessment Accountability and Assessment in British Columbia schools: An exploratory look at policies

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 15 Sensoy, Ozlem Assistant Professor Relationship between popular knowledge and school knowledge; critical media literacy; Islam, the Middle East, Arab and Muslim communities; multicultural education; visual research methods and issues in education

Senyshyn, Yaroslav Professor, Music and Philosophy Yaroslav (Slava) Senyshyn’s academic background (with separate, graduate degrees in music performance and philosophy) and his research interests have been consistently related to interdisciplinary research in arts and moral education.

His most recent experience as President of SFUFA (Simon Fraser University Faculty Association) and his new role on the CAUT (Canadian Association of University Teachers) Executive has allowed him a further ethical dimension under the auspices of moral and aesthetic concerns into national and international problems of governmental authoritarianism in higher education.

Shaker, Paul Dean Paul Shaker is Dean of the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser University. Dr. Shaker has over thirty years experience in teaching, education, and administration. He has a passionate interest in education policy—who wants them and why--and he takes steps to ensure that discussions about education policies involve the campus with the community: friends and neighbours, students and prospective students, alumni, staff, government and outside agencies, schools, and professors, current and retired.

Sinclair, Nathalie Assistant Professor My research interests include: the use of dynamic visualisation software in teaching and learning of mathematics; the aesthetic dimension of learning and doing mathematics; the nature of embodied cognition in mathematics learning.

Smith, Stephen Associate Professor, Director, Professional Programs, Teacher Education and Physical Education My scholarly work pertains to curricular and instructional practices in physical education, health and vitality, and the somatics of teacher education. Drawing up human sciences methodologies, I have investigated the acquisition of movement competence and the means whereby children are taught to become physically proficient. Writings explore gesture theory and its applications to physical education, health education, and teacher education.

Snowber, Celeste Associate Professor My research focuses in the area of issues of embodiment, dance education, phenomenological curriculum research, narrative inquiry, performative and poetic inquiry. As a dancer and poet, my interests focus on arts- based educational research methods which support both academic and artistic ways of writing and knowing. I explore and teach ways of writing from the body and its connection to teacher education, arts education, ecological education and holistic education. My most recent book is exploring the connections between sexuality and spirituality. My most recent poetry and dance continues to explore the relationship between the inner landscapes of the heart and the outer landscapes of creation.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 16 Sterling, Lisa Special Advisor on Aboriginal Affairs to Vice-President, Academic Seconded to the VP-Academic Office since Sept1/2004 as Special Advisor in Aboriginal Affairs.

Sugarman, Jeff Associate Professor, Educational Psychology My scholarship is concerned with the psychology of personhood, selfhood, and human agency; the sociocultural dimensions of psychological development and education; and the aims and methods of theoretical psychology. My research currently is funded by a standard SSHRC grant. I am a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and past recipient (with Jack Martin) of the George Miller Award for Outstanding Recent Article in General Psychology.

Thompson, Janny Associate Professor, Counselling Psychology My scholarly work has focused on quantitative empirical examinations of the interconnections among close relationships, depression, and gender. In my current work, I have shifted to conceptual and critical examinations of the nature of counselling and psychotherapy and of models of counsellor education.

Toohey, Kelleen Professor My research focuses on sociocultural and sociopolitical perspectives on language learning. I am particularly interested in the learning of English as a second language by children.

Vamos, Sandra Assistant Professor, Health Education Through my academia and employment in Canada, Australia, and the U.S. I have explored the emerging field of health education and its application to programmatic, curricular, and instructional practices to enhance individual’s well-being. My scholarly work includes health-promoting schools and teacher education to guide improvements. Recent research investigates the concept of health literacy and the development of relevant applicable measurement tools to enable schools to identify and respond to the health and learning needs in the school setting. van der Wey, Dolores Assistant Professor My current program of research is in Coalition and reparative politics in university contexts. This initiative extends on earlier doctoral research on coalition building for First Nations graduate students and subsequent research, which argues that the university classroom can be a site for coalition building practices in First Nations education. This work is inextricably linked to anti-oppression/anti-racism education and informs my work in pre-service teacher pedagogy where a goal is to develop critical literacy skills through the strategic use of literary genres, among other literature. My research is also informed by Indigenous and critical race feminisms.

Winne, Phil Professor, Educational Psychology, Canada Research Chair in Self-Regulated Learning & Learning Technologies Research Interests: Educational Psychology: self-regulated learning, metacognition, motivation, study tactics and learning strategies, adaptive software for researching and promoting self-regulated learning

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 17 Wise, Alyssa Assistant Professor My research focuses on the design and use of online environments for learning. Coming from a constructivist perspective on learning, I am interested in the tensions (and overlap) between current "consumer" and "community" models of learning. Specifically I am currently investigating how online environments can provide objects that serve as common referents to support learners from different locations, contexts, etc. in having conversations that lead to deep knowledge building as opposed to information exchange.

Zandvliet, David Associate Professor David Zandvliet is an Associate Professor with the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser University and an Adjunct Research Fellow at Curtin University of Technology (Australia). An experienced teacher and researcher, he has published numerous articles in international journals and presented refereed conference papers on six continents and in over 15 countries. His career interests lie in the areas of science, technology and environmental education. As a former director of the Faculty's Centre for Educational Technology, he has considerable experience in the design and evaluation of classrooms and in the provision of teacher professional development. He has conducted research and development on learning environments in Australia, Canada, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Taiwan. He lives on Bowen Island, British Columbia, with his wife and three children.

Zazkis, Rina, Professor Mathematics Education My research is in the area of Undergraduate Mathematics Education, with a focus on mathematical content knowledge of preservice teachers and the ways in which this knowledge is acquired and modified. Teaching, learning and understanding elementary number theory was a specific topic of my recent studies. This research was funded by 5 standard SSHRC grants and several internal grants.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 18 1.2 Historical Perspectives

Historical Perspectives with Implications for the Future, Meguido Zola, Professor Emeritus “Every beginning, after all, is nothing but a sequel, and the book of events is always open in the middle.” — Wislawa Szymborski

A bird’s-eye view of the development of the Faculty of Education over the past 40+ years highlights a number of perspectives on who we uniquely are. This legacy that continues to shape the FOE today holds potential for pointing us to our future and to how to live into that future.

1. The history of the FOE is above all a history of people — scholars, teachers, students, staff, and administrators. Therefore, people — and the nurturing and growing of people — are ever at the heart of our mission. This value runs quietly but deeply in the FOE: and it is pervasively manifest, whether in our ways of being; our governance, organization, and structures; or our traditions of teaching, scholarship, and service.

We hold that:

“The strength of the Faculty of Education is its members. The vitality of its programs, its ability to attract students, and…to exercise leadership through its publications and placement of graduates in positions of influence — all depend on the quality of the faculty. Such an assumption is axiomatic” (Grimmett, 2000, 2).

Both as a community and as individuals, we tend this legacy carefully: acknowledging and upholding respect for the dignity of persons; maintaining a moral ecology of equity and justice, democracy, and academic freedom; fostering uniqueness and diversity, while encouraging and nurturing collegiality and community; and promoting excellence of scholarship, teaching and service.

In service of these values, we continue to develop distinctive structures, supporting mechanisms, and operating principles and procedures to uphold the ideals of academic freedom and excellence, while safeguarding flexibility and judgment in the application of standards and criteria and methods of assessment. These reflect and honour our Faculty’s many and varied ‘ways of being’, and the enactment of these in our manifold traditions of teaching, scholarship, and service. They balance individual needs with community obligations and institutional goals and requirements. They nurture faculty members’ uniqueness and promote career development, both as ends in themselves and as a means to building both faculty and the Faculty. They foster collegiality, openness, and transparency of process. They promote fairness and equity in deliberations and decisions, with due regard for the dignity of persons and the giving of each their due. Especially at this time of unparalleled growth of the FOE, we take care to hold to these values as our internal compass. (Bingham, Campbell, Geva-May, Kanevsky, Mamchur, Neufeld, Zola, 2004)

2. The FOE is no less a history of ideas — original and powerful ideas articulated, explored, and implemented in service of education and the enacting of our vision and mission. Therefore, ideas (e.g., differentiated and complementary staffing; non-departmentalization; service learning in the Professional Development Program (PDP); non-graded teaching practica in the PDP; etc.) remain at the heart of our work, animating and enlivening it, and bringing it to bear upon the communities we serve. To this end, we take care to create and maintain a space that is hospitable to diversity of ideas; that is safe and courageous; and that promotes a deepening of learning from and with one another as, ultimately, a forwarding of our vision and mission.

This historical legacy is at the basis of our belief in the primacy of scholarship as inherent in everything we do — as a standard, as an end in itself, as a means to all our ends. We assert that:

“As a professional unit in a research university with programs in areas such as curriculum, teacher education, instructional psychology, counselling, arts education, French education, language education, etc., the Faculty of Education is committed to the rigorous conceptualization, development, and testing of the knowledge and theory upon which improved practice in these areas can be based. This commitment has characterized the SFU Faculty of Education since its inception in 1965 and is the primary basis for its stellar reputation in the

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 19 field and in the scholarly world. Therefore, faculty members are expected to engage continually in scholarly activity designed to advance theory and practice in education. At the same time, there is a diversity of scholarly styles possible within a professional Faculty accommodating such a broad range of programs. Thus, the assumption is made that productive scholarly activity will take many forms, involve many disciplines, and be presented publicly to professional peers who judge it to be original, disciplined, and valued inquiry” (Grimmett, 2000, 3).

3. Historically, the FOE was central to the foundation of SFU and, for at least its initial decade, was a guiding force in its development and direction. Furthermore, throughout its history, the FOE has remained distinctive in its close and reciprocal relationship with the university and its constituent units. Uniquely among faculties of education in Canadian universities, the FOE has also remained in exceptional high standing within the larger university community. We continue to faithfully attend to and constantly build upon our relationship with and our service to the university and its units (e.g., our contributions to the development of the undergraduate curriculum revision currently taking place across the university; our contributions to the creation and implementation of W writing-intensive courses; our contributions to co-operative education initiatives; our leadership in the Foundations of Literacy initiative; etc.).

4. SFU in general and our FOE in particular were founded in the shadow of UBC and developed intentionally “to not be UBC”, neither its failures nor successes, if that meant replicating any of its practices. This notion has survived over the years and is perhaps reflected in that part of our mission statement that reads: “We look beyond precedents and categories to honour inquiry and imagination”.

The idea held by the founders of the university as of the FOE (and many of our faculty and students in the early years), was that UBC was conservative, rigid, and self-important. We, the university and the FOE, were to be flexible, creative and innovative, whatever the cost. In part, this idea was to be accomplished in the original plans for the university by making Education the only faculty to be created with a Dean, as, too, making Education (subsequently, Professional Programs) the university's only professional program. This goes far to explain the distinctive form and character of the FOE, under its first Dean, Dr. Archie MacKinnon, and Dr. John Ellis, Director of the first Professional Program in the faculty and in the university.

Of particular note here are our non-departmentalized structure and, relatedly, our notions of differentiated and complementary staffing (e.g., Faculty Associates and Program Coordinators, who number almost half our complement and who deliver much of our programming in most program areas, especially in Professional Programs and Field Programs). These innovative ideas continue to springboard numbers of productive experiments in the governance, leadership, and administration of the F o E and its programs (e.g., the recruitment of high-quality faculty, with emphasis on research capacity, in a wide range of fields; interdisciplinary research; etc.)

5. The discipline of education as central in the life of the polis was inherent in the university’s original conception of itself (reflected, for example, in the university’s hiring committees which for some time had 2 members of 5 drawn from the public school system). SFU was to be a “teaching” and “service” university rather than a “research” university, at least in the eyes of the original people appointed to form it, who made numerous public statements to this effect.

In these notions lie the roots of the FOE’s lion heart for serving communities far and wide beyond “Love Mountain” (e.g., Field Programs, which currently represents British Columbia's most extensive and advanced in-service experience for teachers, serving over 800 practicing professionals; our various Graduate Program offerings throughout the province; our widespread community-based Professional Programs year-long modules; etc.).

From these notions, too, spring our very bold and increased outreach work with diverse constituencies (e.g., the work of Field Programs with School Districts and individual teachers; off-campus graduate programs, including the Ed. D. Educational Leadership flagship programs; the DSTC work with First Nations, and PTEM, PQP, ITEM and other specialized modules in Professional Programs; the direct entry program into a BEd/PDP five-year program for high school and college transfer students that will continue initiatives to attract and

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 20 enable promising students, including those from under-represented groups, to pursue a degree in Education and a career in teaching; new program initiatives in China, Japan, and Korea, together with providing infrastructure support for international students enrolled at SFU to ensure that their work in the undergraduate and graduate programs is not impeded by difficulties in academic writing in English; etc.)

And we continue our scholarly outreach at by becoming a public forum for dialogue on issues of educational aims, ethics, equity, and diversity as they affect practice and public policy in education.

6. One of the notions propounded by Chancellor Dr. Gordon Shrum, founder of SFU, was that one learns best by teaching: from this directly grew our practice, continuing to today (e.g., most recently in our sizable FAL programming) of turning to graduate students as course instructors to a far greater extent than in other universities.

Here, too, perhaps, are the roots of a related tradition, strong in the FOE, that we learn how to teach from, and are shaped in our teaching by, the students we teach. Professor Emeritus, Maurice Gibbons, recounting teaching his first Education class, in 1965, captures the essence of this:

…But then I went to my first class… and I was filled right up with learning. And I started out my curriculum class… it was in a… it was one of those hut buildings… there were four buildings, the floor was all carpeted and there were no chairs, so people were all seated on the floor. And I came in and my class was all seated on the floor. I had a little podium, and people were sitting in lotus position, and others were attentive, and others were present but gone, and it was a very strange situation to enter into. And then I started to give my presentation, and I said, you know, this is a course about curriculum, we’ll be talking about, you know, the way to study environments and formulate programs…. and I went on to talk in fairly erudite terms, which I thought was appropriate, and students were sitting and nothing moved… until finally a student put up his hand, looked me straight in the eye and said: “Maurice, what the *#@! are you talking about?” And that was the beginning of my education. I mean, I was stunned by this …and so it was quite clear that my idea about what a professor was supposed to do was no longer appropriate in this new environment, and we started a conversation and my education began…

This spirit of openness to inquiry into one’s teaching, of willingness to be experimental and creative, and of humility to learn from and be tutored by one’s students, continues to serve us well in our leading-edge pedagogy. It results not only in excellence of teaching but in the way we develop scholarly, research-informed educational programs that respond to changing learning needs at local, provincial, national, and international levels.

REFERENCES

Charles Bingham, Stephen Campbell, Iris Geva-May, Lannie Kanevsky, Carolyn Mamchur, Paul Neufeld, Meguido Zola (Chair), FTPC. (2004). “Standards and Criteria and Methods of Assessment for Promotion and Tenure at each of the Ranks of Assistant, Associate and Full Professor: A Statement under the SFU Tenure & Promotion Policies & Procedures, A11.01 -A11.06”. Approved and ratified by the Dean & Faculty of Education at the Faculty of Education Meeting of 29th March, 2004.

Grimmett, P. (2000). "Discussion Paper: Clarification of Criteria for T & P in the Faculty of Education; Consideration of SFU Policy A30.03 for Promotion in the Faculty of Education.” Presented to FTC and the Dean & Executive Committee.

SFU Retirees’ Association (2005). “An Oral History of SFU: The Excitement of the Early Years.” Presented by the SFU Retirees Association; filmed and edited by Joel Schwarz. Dr. Maurice Gibbons, Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Education: ‘On teaching my first class at SFU.’

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 21 1.3 A Reader’s Guide, Suzanne de Castell, Associate Dean, Faculty of Education

This report is composed and organized by reference to the institutional ‘activity structures’ of the Faculty of Education: it has been written by and about colleagues in the institutional sectors within which the work of this community is carried out. Authorship of each main section is collective, and faculty, staff, instructors and students here report on their own areas of work. By this means we have tried to make our self-study meaningful and useful for us in our own terms, as well afford the fullest possible understanding of the Faculty of Education to others.

Background to this Report

Beginning in September 2007, a full day faculty retreat, two faculty fora and a number of ‘area’ meetings as well as a graduate students social event were held. Following the Faculty discussion on Sept 17th/07, a set of documents for information were compiled, scanned and put online with access to faculty and staff at http://www.educ.sfu.ca/staff_resources/extreview/. Also placed on line for general information were previous Faculty reviews, and new self study documents as they ‘went public’.

Discussions were held within groups (Faculty/Cupe Staff/APSA Staff/Students) and across groups (thematically-driven discussion groups composed of faculty and staff, as well as sector-based discussion groups, composed of faculty, staff and students). This was intended to encourage exchanges across institutional divisions, as well as within them. Consultations were held on all aspects of the FOE self-study, including ‘focus’ questions and prospective external reviewers. A “climate and culture’ questionnaire was placed online for FOE Faculty, Staff, Faculty Associates and Coordinators, and Graduate students, and a more directly student-focused survey was co-developed with the help of Education Graduate Student Association members for both undergraduate and graduate students. For the writing up of this report, working groups were composed from within our ‘everyday’ working arrangements. The text’s various voices, foci and perspectives can therefore, be expected to vary considerably.

Structure and Organization

As an interdisciplinary faculty, our ‘program areas’ are functional, not disciplinary. We all, across our various academic specializations, contribute more and less directly, to undergraduate, graduate, professional, field and international programs; we all use the resources of the CET, we are all called upon to communicate with, contribute to and be accountable to a range of kinds of communities within and without the university.

So what follows is a series of reports from this faculty’s main areas of operation, beginning with a short overview and orientation or position statement, followed by a description of what is done, how and by whom in that specific area. Each identifies what appear at this time to be the most prominent strengths within that sector, as well as its most pressing, ‘matters of concern’, as seen currently by those working within that area of operation, and each concludes with plans, prospects, challenges and questions.

Following these sector reports and discussions, is a comparative look ‘then and now’ -- at ‘culture and climate’ within the faculty of education. This critical consideration of an academic unit’s effectiveness in creating and sustaining a climate and culture conducive to good teaching, research and scholarship is stressed in the university’s guidelines for the self-study process. As we had in our last (2001) external review an useful instrument already devised, administered and reported on by Dr. Kelleen Toohey and the Study Group on Culture, we elected to re-administer that questionnaire for in order to see what we could find out about trajectories of constancy and change in Faculty culture and climate.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 22 Uses and Purposes

The penultimate chapter describes the process of developing this faculty’s ‘focus questions’, as well as some of the different ways in which these questions have been framed, nuanced, and taken up by differently positioned groups and individuals within the faculty. We have used the self-study process, and the focus questions in particular, to engage in an extended, faculty-wide consideration and articulation of where we are, an ‘accounting’ of and for ourselves, to inform the external review team, but as well to assist us in a comprehensive description of our very complex and dynamic faculty community. An extended, comprehensive text of this kind is particularly important for our Faculty to arrive at collectively as we welcome a new Dean. It can be invaluable for newcomers, as well as for Faculty and staff moving into relatively unfamiliar program areas. This is intended as an ongoingly useful document.

The final section considers the future challenges we face, and the directions we seem to be, and those we hope to be, pursuing. Like all the sections that precede it, this one seeks to make the current range of viewpoints and perspectives on our ‘best’ courses of action, discernible. That we may not, and do not all agree is, has been for this self study, far less troubling than that we might and do not know enough about one anothers’ viewpoints or conditions, so the enlargement of this understanding is what we have principally aspired to here. The intent has been to learn, from this self-study process, more about the ‘objects’, ‘things’ and ‘matters of concern’ (after Latour & Wiebel, 2005) with which we can actually and most productively engage: in the selection of a new Dean, in the decisions we have to make about whether and how to engage with communities and markets as these redefine educational and scholarly means and ends, and no less, in addressing the immediate practical needs, concerns, and conditions of the people learning and working here. For this reason, we intend to seek from this process and this document, specific implementation goals and a proposed framework for follow-up.

This self-study report, then, is best read as a compilation. There is no ‘authoritative perspective’ to be found here. We do not seek to speak with one voice, but to hear from many. Otherwise documents such as this write themselves in into conformity with a familiar narrative of self-satisfaction. Readers are invited to read for more, other, and better than that.

Reference:

Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, edited by Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel (2005). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 23 1.4 Positions and Locations, David Paterson, Associate Dean, Administration

The opening of the Surrey campus possesses both challenges and opportunities for the SFU Faculty of Education. Our Faculty has a long and distinguished history of work in the region south of the Fraser river and has prepared many of the teachers to work within the Surrey School District. Superintendent Dr. Fred Renihan was famously quoted as stating, “SFU is the Surrey University.”

This faculty set out to build upon our existing strengths and community relationships in forming a new presence in on the Surrey campus. Field programs was a logical first step and began to capitalize on its well- earned reputation of building programs within communities, and utilizing the strength and practical knowledge of leaders in the field.

The PDP modules were another logical program area to be housed within the new Surrey campus. Modules such as the “Urban Mosaic” that had for years been housed in Surrey schools, were now given a home within the SFU Surrey campus. Programs in Educational Technology were thought to be a natural fit with the roots of the Surrey campus development in Tech BC. Graduate programs located faculty members in Surrey to build up new programs on the new campus. Initially the Faculty also secured leaders from the field who were former superintendents of schools.

In examining the need for both graduate and undergraduate program development in Surrey, the Faculty made a bold move in January 2007. The Director of Undergraduate Programs, joined by administrative and advising staff, and all the faculty associated with the MEd and EdD Leadership Program (External) moved their base of their operations to Surrey.

In the subsequent year, our administrative support structure in Surrey has become functional and robust. Support positions (APSA and CUPE) have been filled to provide administrative support to all faculty of Education activity on that campus. There have been regular Surrey-based Faculty and staff meetings (minutes available) and a retreat in the summer of 2007 to set plans and priorities. In the meantime, we discovered the need to maintain existing administrative services on the Burnaby campus with fewer available personnel.

The Teacher Education Program (PDP) is seen to be central to the activity of the Faculty on both campus locations. Currently Teacher Education modules are firmly based on both campuses.

It is important for a new campus to establish research opportunities and presence. Four important educational research centres have made a commitment to locate the centre of their activity in the Surrey campus. In January 2008, we have secured space on the 15th floor for this activity. The only endowed research centre in the Faculty of Education, The Centre for Education, Law and Society, has chosen to make their base of operations in Surrey. The Centre for the Study of Educational Leadership and Policy, recently approved by Senate is underway and complements our programmatic initiatives in this area. Dr. Dan Laitch who is based in Surrey, heads the Centre. Professor Peter Grimmett and others have opened the Institute for the Study of Teacher Education that complements the activity of PDP based in Surrey. The Imaginative Educational Research Group now is building towards a presence in Surrey as well. Dr. Patrice Keats and her colleagues have initiated a Memorandum of Understanding with the Surrey School District to build a counselling clinic within a nearby high school. Taken together we have made solid strides towards the creation of a robust culture of scholarship on this campus.

Undergraduate initiatives include the new Bachelor in General Studies and Direct Entry to the faculty of Education coordinated by Dr. David Paterson who remains the Director of Undergraduate Programs. The Foundations of Academic Literacy course (FAL X99) is located in both the Surrey and the Burnaby campus.

In addition to all of this activity, the Faculty of Education Field Programs continues to collaborate directly with many school districts in the Province. Our recent experience has indicated that beginning faculty members requiring colleagues and mentors may experience difficulty at a new campus facility where this is not yet in place. As programs become established,

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 24 we expect that the Surrey campus will be a desirable base for many faculty members at all stages in their academic career.

There have been challenges in having one Faculty on two campuses. The cost and frequency of travel between campuses is high. For example, the director of Undergraduate Programs is required to have a campus wide profile on Senate Committees, Faculty of Education Executive, and so on. At the same time, it is recognized that Surrey-based Faculty members require access to decision-makers and the opportunity to participate in Faculty governance.

Improvements in communication technology such as video-conferencing are one way to cope with these challenges. We also face the challenge of building a comprehensive plan for the effective management of one Faculty housed at two campuses. At the time of preparing this summary (February 2008), there is a planned Faculty forum to grapple with some of these matters.

Increasingly when one thinks of the SFU Faculty of Education the picture will include the Surrey campus. The community-building and governance challenges discussed in the 2001 External Review have been exacerbated by the recent hiring of many new faculty members who no longer work in close physical proximity to one another. To help examine and address these challenges the Associate Dean (Administration) has been charged to chair a committee to examine Faculty Governance. The work of this elected faculty committee is currently underway. The mandate is to (1) detail the current faculty governance structure, (2) examine other models both within and outside of SFU, and (3) make recommendations to the full faculty for update and change. This is amounting to a large-scale structural examination of how well the faculty mission and vision is supported under the current structure.

This section began with the statement that opening a new campus in Surrey represents opportunity and challenges for the Faculty of Education. Differentiated staffing has afforded us the opportunity to effectively locate programs (such as PDP and Educational Leadership) in the places where they are needed. Some senior faculty members have elected to move their activity to the new campus, and in some cases we have brought in beginning faculty members to assist us in building or enhancing program areas. When the project began we were building upon longstanding professional relationships. Currently we are adjusting and hiring into programs that have begun to become established on the new campus.

The question of how we progress in Surrey and Burnaby is fundamental to the Faculty. The Faculty identity now includes at least two distinct geographical communities. The challenge of integrating, supporting, understanding and managing this new reality is upon us now.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 25 1.5 Working Here: APSA and CUPE Staff

The CUPE staff consists of secretaries, program assistants, clerks and technicians in all areas of the Faculty of Education, each serving a particular program or designated area. There has been a tremendous turnover in staff and the vast majority has been in the Faculty for less than five years. Other major changes include the operation of programs at the Surrey campus, and the standard University practice of relying on temporary workers to fill work gaps, sometimes for extended periods of time. The physical space of the building does make it difficult to see each other on a regular basis, and CUPE staff rarely attends Faculty meetings or forums.

CUPE staff and their title, by area, include:

Centre for Educational Technology (CET) Bee, Jeremy (Database Developer/Tech Support) Hof, Linda (Television Resources Specialist) Weel, Therese (temporarily replacing Brian Lee) Help Desk/Senior Technician Wilson, Debbie (Secretary/Assistant) Yeung, Maggie (temporarily replacing Rosie Peric) (Facilities Clerk) Vacant (Receptionist)

Dean’s Office Chevalier, Sharon (Budget Clerk) Holoboff, Christine (Program Assistant [PT]) McGaffney, Erica (Program Assistant [PT]) Milum, Linda (FTPC/Associate Dean-Admin’s Secretary) Nordstrand, Alana (Dean’s Secretary) Pabla, Devi (Associate Dean-Associate’s Secretary/Word Processing) Wang, May (Communications Clerk)

External Programs and International Initiatives Krenn, Carley (Program Assistant EdD) Hillis, Jeannie (Office Assistant International) Pan, Jane (Program Assistant International) Schiedel, Sharleen (Program Assistant MEd)

Field Programs Cayer, Murielle (Secretary) Fox, Bridget (Program Assistant) Gordon, Dianne (Registration Secretary [PT]) Romeo, Gina (Program Assistant [PT]) Wraight, Kathie (Desktop/Web Publishing & Design)

Graduate Programs du Perron, Brenda (Program Assistant [Master’s programs]) Heap, Shirley (Director’s Secretary [Master’s programs]) Klein, Anne (Information Assistant) Matthews, Karen (Program Assistant) Walker, Mauvereen (Program Assistant [Doctoral programs])

Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs [OFFA/BAFF] Giroux, Betty (Program Assistant)

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 26 Professional Programs Allen, Leslie (Program Assistant) Drumea, Ana (Program Assistant) Franklin, Susan (PDP Admissions) Green, Nancy (Director’s Secretary) Vacant (Program Assistant) [PT] Léveillé, Andrea (PDP Admissions) Milloy, Jana (Program Assistant) Warren, Susan (Program Assistant)

Undergraduate Programs Choi, Tina (Program Assistant) Edwards, Grace (Program Assistant)

SFU Surrey Vacant (Program Assistant) [PT]

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 27 Report from CUPE for the Faculty of Education External Review

CUPE colleagues were asked to express their own sense of what constitutes matters of greatest concern for them, to identify ‘blockages’ which impede their work or issues which diminish their job satisfaction or in other ways adversely affect their working lives, and what remedies they might at this point see as desirable and/or feasible. As well, colleagues were invited to comment on any particularly strong or positive dimensions of their experiences in the FOE.

Drawn from discussion notes, much was identified as being very positive about working in the Faculty of Education:

 Fantastic educational opportunities, good benefits  Excellent community of CUPE staff and faculty members  Respectful work environment (in the Dean’s office)  Good IT  Flexible and understanding work environment  Involvement as a group  Great support and appreciation from co-workers.

The following points were stressed as matters of concern:

(1) Communications: (The following statements regarding Communications, still not implemented, are re- cited ‘verbatim’ from the CUPE Self Study Report of March 2001.) Communication within the Faculty was identified as the most important area of concern. While there are various forms of internal program area communication that are successful (staff meetings, calendars, email, newsletters), there is inconsistency between the program areas and the faculty at large. Faculty-wide information is not systematically disseminated and staff often feel “out of the loop” which reflects in turn on the Faculty’s public image.

Recommendations to improve overall communications within the Faculty follow: a) Introduce newly appointed faculty members, instructional staff and staff, e.g., in person, e-mail, web, etc. b) Celebrate and communicate our individual achievements (both academic and personal) to the Faculty and the wider educational community, e.g., e-mail, bulletins, web, etc. c) Encourage staff to attend Faculty meetings. d) Ensure that minutes from the Faculty meetings are easily accessible to staff, e.g., posted on the web site, hard copies available/distributed to each program area. e) Implement a form of identification for all members of the Faculty, e.g., picture ID badges. f) Schedule regular cross-program meetings, e.g., a representative from each program area meet bi- monthly and report back to the individual areas. g) Promote administrative communication—keep staff informed of schedules, special events, deadlines, etc. Lack of information creates the impression that we are unorganized and unprofessional. h) Suggest that Assistants to the Directors attend Executive meetings to have input into policy decisions.

Consensus was that communications is still a serious issue, and that these very same suggestions remain salient. Added from the CUPE meetings in 2007 is the following: It would be beneficial for the Dean to host monthly lunch or tea “parties” for ALL staff and faculty. We do not have enough functions that all staff are invited to, regardless of affiliation, and on equal footing. This would not only encourage collegiality among all levels of staff, but also serve as a tool to encourage the flow of information.

Casual ‘water cooler’ talk is often the best conduit. This would also give staff a chance to chat with the Dean without making an official request in his very busy day.

(2) Accountability: “There is no accountability” was a strongly expressed statement. One example that secured widespread nods of agreement was that staff are pressured to complete tasks to a set deadline, but

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 28 others with whom they work and upon whom their timely completion depends, do not hold themselves equally accountable to the same timelines. This phenomenon seems to be widely experienced. It was well appreciated that others are very busy, however CUPE staff are certainly no less busy and require well coordinated efforts in which others hold themselves accountable to the same timelines and quality of work to which CUPE staff are held.

(3) Respect: This largely female, largely very experienced and skilled group of colleagues felt that respect is not shown for their experience, skills and abilities. They report that they work extremely well together, are in very good, constant communication both with the needs and the timelines of their jobs, but also with the personal lives and requirements and schedules of their colleagues and they feel that they self-organize and self-manage in very responsible ways, which are always careful about and attentive to workflow needs. They know their own jobs best, their own schedules and timelines, and their own requirements within their working groups. So it would feel to them far more respectful if their own assessments of what needs to be done when, and in particular of who may take holidays or other scheduled time away, be based on their own recommendations.

One proposed solution to this feeling of not being listened to is if staff groups could coordinate their own scheduled times off, and present those to their supervisors with the usual understanding being that these would be the basis for scheduling holiday time, other things being equal. This was ONE example of how a sense of being respected might be improved. It’s clear that there are other areas, and indeed even just an improvement in standards of everyday civility in interactions with CUPE staff could help this area.

(4) Tech support: It was very strongly felt that tech support is not adequate for staff. Some felt they were asking very busy people for favors rather than simply getting the essential help they need to do their job. Others felt that staff tech help is placed on a priority list, and is not very high on that list. The kind of ‘just in time,’ relevant, effective help that was reported as usual in the last review is by no means experienced that way now. Workshops to update skills, but more urgently, timely help with technology needs and problems, is experienced as an urgent priority by FOE staff colleagues.

We need to have basic reliable equipment and network infrastructure that we don't have at the moment. This can be improved by a concerted effort of ensuring equipment and infrastructures are in place—this is a resource issue—both budget and staffing.

The idea of getting “more tech people” to make all technological dreams come true is unrealistic. This idea might have worked in the 80s when we used e-mail and one standard office application. What will work now is creating and encouraging peer knowledge exchanges and sharing best practices, learning from each other how we can use them better.

IT CUPE staff are hard working, pro-active and use existing technology to the best of their abilities.

(5) Job descriptions/Evaluations: It has been decades now that long term staff have been told that Human Resources is too ‘backed up’ to do a job description review. MANY feel the jobs they are doing are not adequately defined nor, therefore, adequately rewarded or recognized. That this is a major issue is very clear, but what can be done about it remains less than obvious to CUPE colleagues.

The idea was floated of taking some time at a working meeting to look at the existing descriptions for each person’s job and indicating how they should be updated. Perhaps if enough of these necessary revisions could be compiled, the pressing need for more HR efforts within the FOE might be more strongly evident. In discussion it was proposed that, were annual performance reviews to be done routinely, as is usual in most places of work, that would be a good time to both review (regularly, annually) with the staff member the actual versus the on-paper account of what their job has involved over the previous 12 months, and that process, (which should also then review staff colleagues’ goals for the period, and for the future, their job and resource and pro-D needs, etc.), might further assist in making a strong case for MORE HR attention to FOE job classifications.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 29 A very sore spot was the perception that it is so hard to get a position reclassified that it seems the FOE is more inclined to hire a new person with a new job description than to advance existing staff that have the skills and experience and ambition to move ahead in their jobs. Moreover, many of these newly created positions are APSA and not CUPE positions, and many staff members have witnessed the work they have done for years get reclassified within an APSA position for which they are not eligible, which is of course paid at a higher rate.

So there is considerable anxiety, frustration, and even understandably, some resentment about the consistent refusal of requests to re-work CUPE job descriptions. It seems a consultant was brought in a few years back to alleviate this problem however it also appears this did not work out as hoped, so far as most staff members are concerned. That it erodes morale and motivation to see ones colleagues (and to have oneself) passed over for jobs at a higher status and higher pay rate than they have enjoyed, and the very same work passed on to a newly appointed person who automatically assumes a higher position, is obvious. The problem of job reclassification is severe and gravely undermines our staff colleagues.

NO less important, and related to this issue, is that longstanding staff members who have the skills and interests in being promoted to more challenging positions seem all too often to be overlooked: why do we not concentrate on identifying suitable people FROM WITHIN the CUPE ranks? The insistence on a university degree for some forms of work that this very highly skilled and experienced group of (mostly) women can easily perform because they have such a wealth of ability, seems unfair. Its true that opportunities exist for CUPE members to take on studies towards a degree, however with work and family and other duties, this is not often a real option. Just as we defer demands for previous degrees and accept life experience as an alternative qualification so should we consider such a basis for calculating equivalency of qualifications, rather than strictly insisting on university degrees to credential people who already have long and well proven their abilities to do a given job.

At best, job reviews and evaluations are reported as spotty. Some staff feel they are not done at all. Others described having their performance evaluated by someone who in fact had no exposure to, nor any understanding of, what their job actually was or required, making the evaluation hollow at best. Some colleagues stressed that annual performance reviews could be both supportive and productive.

As well, IF we, as a Faculty, were to initiate employee evaluations for CUPE staff, APSA staff should be included.

Many remarked on office and general cleanliness not being adequate

There is a need for staff recognition and staff incentives, as many work ‘beyond the call of duty’ and do so gladly, but recognition of or rewards for such effort is largely absent.

Closing Statement

CUPE staff are willing to participate in these “reviews” and are thankful for inclusion in the process but it is felt that our words “fall on deaf ears,” “nothing will ever change,” and therefore we feel a high level of frustration.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 30 APSA Perspectives for the Faculty of Education External Review

APSA members represent approximately 20 staff members within the Faculty of Education. APSA staff includes the Assistant to the Dean and Program Managers for each of the five program areas. The Program Managers work with the Directors of the program areas, and are responsible for the budget, administrative operations, and human resources for their given program area. Program Managers supervise a range of CUPE staff members, as well as, some APSA members have very specific roles within the Faculty, such as external communications, technical support, grants facilitation, advancement, and student advising.

APSA as a whole are leaders within the Faculty helping to develop and implement the Faculty’s vision. APSA recognizes this as a time of growth and opportunity and view our contributions as providing support and leadership in decision making in the area of Faculty administration, while being sensitive to the needs of the faculty and staff.

APSA staff and their title, by area, include:

Centre for Educational Technology (CET) Leung, Howard (Systems Consultant) Warren, Derek (temporarily replacing Carson Au) (Web Development Coordinator)

Dean’s Office Carr, Linda (Budget Coordinator) Leacock, Tracey (Grants Facilitator [PT]) Liu, Geniva (Grants Facilitator [PT]) London, Tracy (Advancement) [PT] Meyers, Donalda (Assistant to Dean) Ng, Ruby (Associate Director, Communications)

External Programs and International Initiatives Andrews, Ian (Director) Dunbar, Sophie (Program Manager, International Programs) Pruner, Debbie (Program Manager, EdD & MEd Programs)

Field Programs Grebinsky, Lisa (Administrative Coordinator) Templeton, Maureen (Program Manager)

Graduate Programs Kirkland, Karen (Program Manager) Magambo, Carol (Assistant to the Director [SPECIAL PROJECTS])

Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs [ OFFA/BAFF ] Sauro, Stephanie (Administrative Coordinator)

Professional Programs Kelso, Diane (Manager, Recruitment & Admissions) Nazareno, Suzanne (temporarily replacing Catherine Clarke) (Program Manager) Verret, France (Special Programs Advisor)

Undergraduate Programs Breadon, Jacquie (Undergrad Advisor) Porter, Shelley (Program Manager) Thong, Leonard (Assistant to Associate Dean-Admin) Surrey Campus

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 31 When asked to identify areas of improvement, the two main areas of concern that occupied most of the discussion in the APSA self-study meetings were in the areas of human resources, particularly job re- evaluation, and technology and the computing systems within the Faculty and across the University. The biggest obstacle felt by APSA staff was with getting positions evaluated through Human Resources so that we can recruit in a timely manner, and more importantly, retain strong employees. It was felt that a great deal of time and effort was being expended, and considerable employee talent, experience and morale eroded, through the process of getting new jobs classified and existing jobs re-classified often leading to the need to hire a succession of temporary employees. It was pointed out we give our staff very good training, particularly technical, and because of this, when they apply for other positions they are considered very strong candidates and are generally offered the position. This then leads to retraining, once again. Morale for employees being supervised by APSA staff is said to be seriously lowered by our apparent inability to give employees the kind of job security and rewards (job classification) they should be entitled to expect. It was mentioned that because it takes so much time to retrain new staff, at times APSA colleagues have elected simply to do the work themselves, feeling that it was often faster to do so. This led to APSA staff finding themselves doing, in effect, two jobs.

The second major discussion point was technology. Whereas the previous external review report by APSA had spoken in glowing terms about technology’s promise and the high quality of technology provision and technical support APSA colleagues enjoyed at that time, today the situation seems to be very different indeed. The PeopleSoft systems (SIMS, HAP, BUD) were characterized as unworkable, inconsistent, unreliable, and by design, ‘unfriendly’ for MAC users. People spoke about taking hours to do jobs that had previously taken only a few minutes. Others spoke about reporting the same problems over and over and eventually giving up on reporting problems and just finding ways to work around the system. It was proposed that having a dedicated person that would: configure systems specifically for FOE needs; have meetings across departments to ensure that colleagues were sharing information and not duplicating work; and setting common standards and processes within the faculty for dealing with the database and information management systems we use might help us use the systems more efficiently.

Other areas of concern that were touched on very briefly were the need to review and reprioritize our use of office and classroom space in the Education Building and the insufficient tech support that is available in the Faculty, particularly in the area of web development and technical support.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 32 1.6 Essential Facts and Figures, Donalda Meyers, Assistant to the Dean

The Faculty of Education’s base budget for the 2007/08 fiscal year was $18,030,246. This amount covers the cost of instructional and administrative salaries, non-salary items and capital items. The budget is comprised of: grants from the provincial government, tuition fee recoveries for Premium Fee Programs and other specific course offerings (FAL), and a small amount of funding for research infrastructure (IDC). The budget is distributed to the Faculty by the Vice-President Academic office.

Over 91% of the Faculty of Education’s base budget goes to salary and benefits, and 79% of the salary is instructional costs (faculty (continuing and limited term), sessional instructors, teaching assistants, faculty associates and coordinators, and post-retirement contracts). The remaining 8.5%, of the base budget covers operating and capital costs for the Faculty.

Up until 2003/04, approximately 25% of our total budget came from what we referred to as “external program funding”. This included projects such as the Alaska Highway Consortium on Teacher Education (AHCOTE), all our premium-fee and tuition-recovery programs, First Nations programs, and other programs funded from agencies outside of SFU. In 2003/04, the University decided to move most of these projects into the base (or fund 11) budget. The only projects that have not been moved over is AHCOTE and our international programs. I have not included them in the budget information, as they are outside the base budget and I expect further discussion of these programs to come from Professional Programs and International Programs.

Students by Fiscal Year:

 There has been constant growth in the number of Undergraduate FTEs from 2002/03 onward. (There appears to be a decrease in enrolments in Undergraduate FTEs from 1999/00 to 2002/03, but in 2000/01 we replaced several Undergraduate PBDs with Graduate Diplomas and so the FTEs were shifted from Undergraduate to Graduate).  The Graduate FTEs have grown quite a bit in the last few years. This is reflected by substantial growth in the EdD and MEd Community Based programs, as well as a large increase in Graduate Diploma FTEs for 2006/07.

Student Success by Fiscal Year:

 Increase in BEd and Education minors - In 2003/04, the FOE made changes to the BEd second degree to make it more attractive to students entering the Professional Development Program after having completed a first degree. This has led to an increase in completion of the BEd (second) and the minors that are part of the degree.  Post Baccalaureate Diplomas have decreased. As students completed their programs PBD’s were replaced with graduate Diplomas.

Instructional Delivery by Fiscal Year:

 The number of Undergraduate courses increased substantially from 2005/06 to 2006/07, with the start of the Foundations of Academic Literacy program which is offered as small seminars of 18 students each.  The increase in Graduate courses from 2005/06 to 2006/07 follows the increase in FTEs.

% of Course Sections Taught by CFL and Lab Instructors:

 This has decreased because our big growth areas, Professional Programs, the MEd (Community Based Program), and the Graduate Diploma Program are all mostly staffed by faculty associates and coordinators or sessionals. Tenure-track faculty are generally asked to teach the more mainstream Graduate and Undergraduate courses, although many are involved in program development for the Community Based MEds and Graduate Diplomas and they act as Site Sponsors for these programs.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 33 % of Distribution of Primary Weekly Instructor Contact Hours:

 Although the CFL contact at the Undergraduate level has remained constant, it has increased substantially at the Graduate level.

Budgeted FTE Support Staff:

 In 2003/04, the University moved many of our non-base-funded programs into fund 11. The increase in staff from 2003/04 to 2004/05 reflects the move, not an actual increase in staff.

Education Operating Budget:

 Again, the increase in the budget from 2003/04 to 2004/05, reflects the transfer of non-based-funded budgets to the base budget.

Faculty of Education Budgets % of total % salary 2007/2008 budget budget Continuing Faculty (includes non-tenure track) $5,649,396 34.28% Sis, Ltd term, post ret $2,184,157 13.25% URA/Visitors/etc $56,000 0.34% Teaching Assistants $321,557 1.95% FAs/Coordinators $4,812,222 29.20% Research Assts (operating) $257,022 1.56% Support Staff $2,985,730 18.11% Admin Stipends $216,097 1.31%

Total Salaries $16,482,181 91.41% 100.00%

Operating $1,548,065 8.59% Total Base Budget $18,030,246 100.00%

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 34 *Insert Education Dashboard Materials from Donalda Here

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 35 2. “Thinking of the World” – International Programs in the Faculty of Education

2.1 Learning to Think of the World, Ian Andrews, Director, International Programs and the International Programs Committee and Support Staff

Three-Year Plan (2007-2010) International Programs

“Education, in its deepest sense and at whatever age it takes place, concerns the opening of identities – exploring new ways of being that lie beyond our current state.” (Wenger, 1998)

A. OVERVIEW

The Faculty of Education is committed to the internationalization of the Faculty through various activities within all Program Areas. Internationalization recognizes that our Faculty’s work is situated internationally and has global/local connections and opportunities. The Faculty of Education’s International Programs have particular responsibilities to develop cross-cultural awareness, to internationalize curricula, to education local and international students at all levels of study, to foster research and teaching in internationalization and global issues, to work with partners in other countries in a worldwide community of scholars and practitioners.

The selection of the appropriate model of delivery and program activity is a critical academic and administrative decision. International participants and SFU personnel must collaboratively consider the instructional content and its relevance to the cultural and educational context of the country involved. The international participants also examine the appropriate balance regarding SFU-hosted course work with on- site instructional delivery and with distance education programming.

Administrative issues such as staffing capacity, budget considerations and space availability also inform the final decision by the appropriate Director and Programs Committee at all credit based programs and the Director of International Initiatives (non-credit programs and offshore consultancies), the Executive regarding the endorsement and approval of these programs, and the Faculty members involved in the deliveries of these international focused programs.

B. PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMS

1. International Teacher Education Module: ITEM

Professional Development Programs (PDP) in the Faculty of Education has successfully implemented the International Teacher Education Modules over the past 11 years. This program of teacher education combines a short practicum (8 weeks) in another country with seminar and course work reflecting international and global education and plus a more sustained practicum (13 weeks) in the Lower Mainland. In the past ten years at least one or two students have enrolled in a PDP based 401/402 seminar in Burnaby so as to encourage an academic exchange of international forums within non-PDP and the ITEM modules. Over the past five years, this module has hosted approximately 370 students in the locations of Oaxaca, Mexico and Port of Spain in Trinidad. In response to the need expressed by undergraduate students, ITEM has recently implemented a module of 19 students in Dalian, China (January, 2007- December, 2007). PDP will host another module of 16 students in Dalian in the Spring 2008 term.

In 2006, working closely with the Office of Francophone Affairs, PDP has provided an international experience in French and English Language instruction in Cuba. This program provided an opportunity for PDP enrolled in the French module students to explore the Cuban culture and Spanish language with students.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 36 In an on-going effort to provide international opportunities to students from Northern BC, AHCOTE has developed an exchange program with Sam Sharpe College in Montego Bay, Jamaica. Six students from AHCOTE travel to Jamaica for a short teaching practicum and 6 students from Sam Sharpe are provided with scholarships to travel to Northern BC for a similar opportunity.

2. International Internship

Working closely with Professional Programs (PP), the Faculty has facilitated an international internship opportunity for recent graduates of PDP. Overseas partners in countries such as: England, Germany, Spain, Korea and China, provide short-term teaching placements that provide an excellent opportunity for our graduates to experience teaching in another country: cultural and pedagogical orientation and debriefing seminars are provided. Over the past four years, PP has sent 25 students abroad.

3. Professional Qualification Program (PQP)

PQP has been developed for teachers who have teaching experience or qualifications from outside Canada, to enter the teaching profession in BC. The program explores issues and content in the areas of philosophy of education in BC, curriculum design and methodologies, classroom and school operations, student/teacher interactions, inclusion of diverse student populations and other relevant topics. Time in schools is spent focusing on the application of seminar work. Over the past five years, PQP has graduated over 110 such teachers.

4. International Minor

When students elect to declare an Education minor, one of their options is the International and Global Education Minor. This minor includes a practicum experience while exploring an interdisciplinary, experientially based approach to international and global education. Some of the possible courses that can be taken to complete this minor include: International and Intercultural Education; Infusing a Global Perspective in the Curriculum; Diversity in Education: Theories, Policies, Practices and Curriculum and Instruction in Teaching English as a Second Language. Approximately 220 students have enrolled in this type of preparatory course work and about 100 have taken the International Minor as a result. (see Appendix 2)

5. University Field Schools

The Faculty of Education’s first Undergraduate Field School began three years ago at Panjab University. Approximately 10 - 14 students per year have participated in this program by completing 3 four-credit courses equivalent in India in the fall semester. Students are attracted to this program due to their cultural, geographic and education interests in India. A number of students use this course as a preparatory course to apply to the International and Global Education Minor. The program is one semester long consists of the first four weeks, including course work and preparatory orientation, at SFU followed by nine weeks of cultural, educational studies and community service in the Panjab. Students from Panjab University have come to SFU for study as a reciprocal academic benefit for both partner universities.

A second Undergraduate Field School is planned for Indonesia in September 2008. The curriculum focus will be environmental education. Most students are planning to apply to the PDP Environmental Education module upon completion. (see Appendix 2)

A Field school (experiential travel program) is planned for May 2008 for graduate students enrolled in health education. In this program hosted by Cologne University in Germany the graduate students will complete the second semester of their health education masters program. Cologne students are planning a visit to SFU for a similar length of time in July 2008.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 37 6. Prospective Plans

Prospective Plans For International Activities in Professional and Undergraduate Programs

In future, undergraduate applicants will work closely with Undergraduate Programs in the Faculty of Education to facilitate the direct entry option for September 2008. This immediate access into the education faculty will provide entry for both domestic and international students.

Professional Programs is continuing the expansion of its international opportunities by looking at collaborative partnerships with the University of Hawaii and the Marshall Islands, as well as continuing discussions with possible ITEM sites in Europe and Latin America.

C. GRADUATE PROGRAMS

1. Master of Education Degree, Teaching English as a Second/Foreign Language (TESL/TEFL)

The objective of this program is to provide an opportunity for English language teachers and specialists to further develop and increase their understanding of educational issues and practices specific to the teaching of English as a Second or Foreign Language. The program provides an exciting and in-depth professional, scholarly, and cultural experience for its students, involving both coursework and practical field experiences in local schools and colleges. Throughout the program, as students engage with current theories and practices in TESL/TEFL, they are encouraged to apply these understandings to the development of ideas and strategies in their own EFL or other professional environment.

The 17-month program was launched August 2005 with 20 students, all from China; they completed the program in December 2006. In August 2006 the second cohort began, with 20 students from China and 2 from Korea; they completed this December 2007. The third cohort began August 2007 and has 20 students from China and 1 from Korea. Recruitment has begun for Cohort 4 with a program start date of July 28, 2008. This October/November 2007, Dr. Bonnie Waterstone – Coordinator, M.Ed. International, attended the Canadian Symposium, a recruitment fair, in China.

A proposal for an Off Shore M.Ed. Program, similar to the M.Ed. in TESL/TEFL but offered in China, was being considered by the Director of Graduate Programs in 2007. The Faculty members who have taught in TESL/TEFL and the new Director of Graduate Programs will examine this proposal in 2008.

2. Master Of Education Degree, Curriculum And Instruction, Fall 2006 – Spring 2008 CIDA Tier 1 Project

With funding from CIDA, the Faculty of Education, Continuing Studies and our partner universities in Thailand, Laos and Cambodia are offering this program in country to 25 practicing educators in post-secondary and community services, 5 from Thailand, 11 from Laos and 9 from Cambodia.

These students have met for four-week intensive institutes at Chulalongkorn University in Thailand, the Royal University of Phnom Penh in Cambodia, and National University of Laos. During the 2007 summer semester, these students traveled to SFU for an 8 - week residential program. They participated in the Summer Institute 2007: Educating in a Globalizing World sponsored by the Faculty of Education as part of the "Education Matters Lecture Series". These students will graduate in April/May 2008.

This project introduces an innovative approach to international co-operation and collaboration by drawing on Canadian and Thai expertise to build institutional capacity in Thailand, Cambodia and Laos. The goal is to promote community social and economic development in Thailand, Cambodia and Laos through increased access to quality continuing education and training.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 38 3. On-line M.Ed in Curriculum and Instruction (Imaginative Education)

An online M.Ed in Curriculum and Instruction (Imaginative Education) was initiated as another international option with Graduate Programs. This program, a first for the University, was developed by IERG in collaboration with CODE and Graduate Programs in response to international interest. Several students in the first cohort are situated overseas.

D. SHORT-TERM, NON-CREDIT INTERNATIONAL TEACHER EDUCATION

The overall goal of these short-term, non-credit programs is to provide a broad range of teaching and learning experiences for overseas teachers and student teachers to enable them to examine, evaluate and enhance their own practice and study, in the context of both their home country and the Canadian education systems. Stated program goals include the following:

 revisiting broad educational philosophies and theories and examining their relationships to classroom practices  examining principles and practices of current, effective approaches to teaching English as an Additional/Foreign language  identifying approaches, strategies, and methods that could be designed, implemented and evaluated in home country contexts.

Programs typically enroll from 12 to 25 participants for periods of 2 to 8 weeks.

Over the past 5 years, teacher and student teacher groups have come from Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mainland China and Hong Kong.

2007 has been a most active year, with IP hosting eight groups between January and October as follows:

 7 secondary teachers Hokkaido University of Education, Japan  22 elementary teachers The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong  11 education students Hokkaido University of Education  25 elementary teachers The Hong Kong Institute of Education  15 college teachers Vietnam (northern region of the country)  18 education students Cheongju National University of Education, Korea  23 elementary teachers The Hong Kong Institute of Education  30 principals (new program) Beijing, China [co-sponsor - Surrey School District]

Projected and confirmed (C) programs for 2008 include:

 16 teachers Seoul Metropolitan Office of Educations, Korea [C]  16 Global Studies students Hokkaido University of Education, Japan  27 elementary teachers The Hong Kong Institute of Education [C]  20 elementary principals The Hong Kong Institute of Education [C]  20 elementary and secondary teachers Foshan, China [C]  24 elementary teachers The Hong Kong Institute of Education  20 teachers Taiwan

Programs have been highly successful, due to receptive participant groups; cooperative and collaborative international organizations and institutions; and committed, qualified and experienced instructors (both faculty and sessionals), staff and administrators.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 39 Recruitment of Short-term, Non-credit and Undergraduate students

In addition, international teacher educators and government officials from China, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Indonesia and Vietnam, are invited for one and two-day recruitment visits to learn about the unique professional and graduate programs offered by the Faculty of Education (12 visits per year). Other SFU international activities offered by the other Faculties and Continuing Studies are promoted and delegations are invited to visit these other SFU Faculties as requested.

E. MOBILITY PROJECTS

1. EUROPE - CANADA student mobility project, 2003 – 2006, HRSDC Grant

The increasing diversity in student populations – in terms of socio-economic, political, religious, cultural, ethnic, racial and linguistic factors – challenges school systems and institutions to evolve in order to stay responsive to these demographic and social changes. The project entitled Internationalization, Cultural Difference, and Migration: Developing a Curriculum for Teacher Education involved 36 Canadian and 41 European pre-service teachers in 12-week international school placements as part of their teacher education program.

The main objective was to strengthen intercultural approaches to teaching and learning. Specifically, the project involved teaching and learning in different international school systems and implemented teaching practices which aimed at preparing future teachers to better understand and manage the multiple issues of diversity and difference that are part of rapidly changing local and global classrooms.

The project included three Canadian universities from each of the western provinces: Simon Fraser University, B.C. (Canadian lead), the University of Lethbridge, AB, and the University of Regina, SK; and three European universities: the University of Leeds in Leeds, England (EC lead), the University of Jaén in Jaén, Spain, and Otto-von-Guericke University in Magdeburg, Germany.

Another such project took place between 2004 – 2007. Resulting of the collaboration between the Faculty of Education and the Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs, RESO (Rayonnement de l’éducation dans des sociétés ouvertes) focused on a comparative study of education systems in Canada and Europe, with the aim of helping student teachers deepening their intercultural understandings in preparation to teach in diverse classroom settings. The French language consortium’s activities allowed for sixty (60) students (Canadian and Europeans) to experience teaching/learning in another country/culture. The project included, in Canada, Simon Fraser University, the University of Ottawa and the Campus Saint-Jean of University of Alberta. The European partners were the Institut de formation des maîtres (IUFM) Midi Pyrénées in Toulouse, France, Complutense University in Madrid, Spain and Coïmbra University, in Coïmbra, Portugal.

2. North America Student Mobility Project (proposed) 2008 – 2010

The proposed 2008 North American Mobility Program involves the development of promising new international teacher education strategies among these six Universities, two are existing partners:

 University of Wisconsin – Whitewater, USA  California State University, Fresno, USA  Universidad de Guanajuato, Mexico  Universidad Benito Juarez de Oaxaca, Mexico (current partner)  University of Lethbridge, Canada (current partner)  Simon Fraser University, Canada

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 40 The educational focus incorporates teaching and intercultural competence, including the integration of language proficiency in Spanish, innovative curricular revision, and course work with practicum apprenticeships abroad to increase intercultural learning opportunities.

There will be measurable goals, objectives and outcomes within the Mobility Program including appropriate plans for student recruitment; pre-travel preparation of students; receiving exchange students; reintegrating returning students; integration of faculty exchanges; and institutionalization and dissemination of research and curriculum.

F. INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANCY

1. Trinidad and Tobago

Over the last eight years, members of the Faculty have been contracted to undertake international consultancy assignments. In the past year, Trinidad and Tobago contracted the Faculty in teacher education program and curriculum reform. The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, in cooperation with the Inter-American Development Bank, has initiated a series of projects aimed at modernizing the educational system of Trinidad and Tobago. In pursuit of modernization, this consultancy visited Trinidad and Tobago to investigate the areas of teacher professional development, and curriculum and instruction, testing and evaluation and Spanish as the first foreign language. The main objective for these visits was to examine the modernization process in terms of curriculum, pedagogy, resources, structural factors, testing and evaluation, stakeholder groups involved and the role of teachers in Trinidad and Tobago. The findings and recommendations of this consultancy will subsequently provide the basis for the development of a proposal by the Ministry of Education to the IDB for further implementation and funding of educational projects in Trinidad and Tobago. Through this investigation it is anticipated that a contribution will be made to the development of a seamless education system in terms of the movement of students within the system, the progression of learning experiences and educational coherence within the system while implementing modern approaches to education, and the introduction of a professional development teacher education protocol for the country.

2. Possible consultancies in Bangladesh, Ghana, Indonesia and Cambodia

In conjunction with Continuing Studies and other Faculties, possible consultancies with these countries may be added to our Faculty’s international profile in the coming year. These community based programs and revenue-generating programs will only be pursued if Faculty of Education personnel are actively involved.

G. CONFERENCES

1. 2006 Conference – SFU To The World And Back

In celebration of Simon Fraser’s 40th anniversary, International Programs and the Education Graduate Students’ Association hosted a conference called “From SFU to the World and Back: Weaving International and Local Perspectives” from July 6-8, 2006. The purpose of the conference was to acknowledge the history of our Faculty and explore our local, national, and international contributions by bringing together students, faculty, alumni, and distinguished international guests to share their knowledge and experience, and engage in dialogue about the directions in which we are headed. Keynote speakers were Dr. Erica Meiners, distinguished SFU alumni and Assistant Professor of Women’s Studies from Northeastern

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 41 Illinois University, Dr. Selvyn Lewis, international educator from Trinidad and, Kumari Beck, Ph.D. candidate from Faculty of Education at SFU.

2. Chinese Lingual & Cultural Centre’s National Conference on Heritage Languages

The 2007 National Conference International Languages and Education: Access, Equity and Inclusiveness was co-hosted by the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser University and The Chinese Lingual-Cultural Centre of Canada from June 22-24, 2007. The conference addressed the intellectual development, social, cultural, and economic risks of dwindling minority language programs in Canada through 27 concurrent workshops and a unique academic forum that featured presentations by professors from Simon Fraser University (Dr. Jan Walls and Dr. Roumi Ilieva), University of Toronto (Dr. Jim Cummins), and University of Calgary (Dr. David Watt).

3. Imaginative Education Research Group (IERG) International Conference – 2006

In 2006, IERG received an International Opportunities Fund development grant to work on building an international research network in imaginative education. IERG used some of that funding to bring more than 30 researchers from a dozen countries together to join BC teachers and researchers for a conference meeting in July 2006.

In January 2008, Australian researchers at the University of Canberra are hosting the first International Conference on Imagination and Education to be held outside Vancouver. The three-day conference will be followed by a research planning meeting which is intended to lead to one or more collaborative research proposals submitted to Australian funding agencies. Several faculty members and students in IERG are taking part.

Postdoctoral researcher Dr. Stefan Popenici from Romania spent eight months at SFU working on developing research partnerships in a number of European countries. In April-May 2007, Dr. Kieran Egan and Dr. Sean Blenkinsop visited Romania, Georgia, Spain (Catalonia), Israel and Italy to build on some of the most promising contacts. Dr. Kieran Egan has since submitted a proposal for project funding to the International Opportunities Fund that would take this work further.

Colombian professor Dr. Zayda Sierra visited BC in May 2007 and spent nearly two weeks of her stay familiarizing herself with the Learning for Understanding through Culturally Inclusive Imaginative Development (LUCID) research project in Prince Rupert and Haida Gwaii. She and Dr. Mark Fettes are now working on a Letter of Intent to the new International Community-University Research Alliances program of SSHRC. An award has been received from the Department of Foreign Affairs enabling the Faculty to host Alexandra Henao of the University of Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia for five months in 2008.

H. CONCLUSION

Benefiting from the future support of SFU International and building upon the experience of delivering international activities in the Faculty of Education over the past twelve years, these examples of internationalization in the Faculty of Education have been most positive. One contributing factor for some faculty members’ interest in international education has been the opportunity to incorporate intercultural awareness and intercultural understanding into the academic agenda of their research and course work.

All of the FOE’s international activities are assessed first and foremost in terms of their educational quality, academic accountability and financial viability. Consequently, as the Faculty continues its academic planning, it is important to examine how each of the program areas of the Faculty may continue to incorporate the internationalization of its activities, within the Faculty’s future academic plan.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 42 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Dr. Ian Andrews Director

Dr. Sharon Wahl Dr. Bonnie Waterstone Sophie Dunbar Margaret Froese Dr. Don Northey Int'l. Prog. Coordinator M Ed. Int’l. Coordinator Manager, Admin. & Finance S.T.N.C Prog. Coordinator Consultant (.5 time) (.75 time) (part-time) (part-time)

Jane Pan Jeanie Hillis Program Assistant International Assistant

Sophie Dunbar provides managerial support and Jane Pan and Jeanie Hillis provide administrative assistance to all team members, on various projects, as needed.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 43 3. Learning to Teach: Teaching to Learn – Teacher Professional Development, Stephen Smith, Director, Professional Programs

The following account draws extensively, inspirationally and literally on the Professional Programs Three-Year Plan, 2007 – 2010 compiled by Meguido Zola, Director of Professional Programs, 2004 – 2007. This three- year plan was cast “as a living document that will be reviewed, reassessed, and revised through the period of its life.” We are now a year into that life. It is timely, therefore, to consider the current status of Professional Programs, its enduring strengths, ongoing challenges, and what we must do to ensure that “a living document” is a reflection of our work lives and testament to the vitalities of teacher professional development.

There is indeed vitality to the work we do in Professional Programs. The energies of beginning teachers are coupled synergistically with the enthusiasms of their mentors, instructors and supervisors. Differentiated staffing, with seconded Faculty Associates and Coordinators working alongside tenure-track Faculty Members, infuses the freshness of school experience with the fervor of educational scholarship. This staffing model, which includes connection, on the one side, to School Associates and their School Communities and, on the other, to all the Faculty resources of a research-intensive university, is the pivotal feature of Professional Programs. It is the primary reason why our Professional Programs have remained in high applicant demand and why our graduates have continued to secure teaching placements ahead of graduates from the other Provincial teacher education programs.

This vitality is fueled by what we do at two levels of teacher professional development. For student teachers, it is vitally important that we create the most coherent programs for them in partnership with cooperating school districts and under the guidance of the British Columbia College of Teachers. But that is only half the story. As well, there is the professional development of their mentors, supervisors and instructors to consider. “Learning to teach,” on the part of novice teachers, has its necessary corollary in “teaching to learn” on the part of the seasoned Faculty Associates and research-wise Faculty members.

The first section of this account of Teacher Professional Development will thus consider Pedagogy as Profession and the ways in which we can best provide a model and structure of professional learning that is inclusive of professional and academic mentors. The second section will then look specifically at the means of delivering Professional Programs to a clientele of increasingly diverse teacher education candidates.

3.1 Pedagogy as Profession

Teaching is even more difficult than learning. We know that; but we rarely think about it. And why is teaching more difficult than learning? Not because the teacher must have a larger store of information, and have it always ready. Teaching is more difficult than learning because what teaching calls for is this: to let learn. The real teacher, in fact, lets nothing else be learned than — learning. His conduct, therefore, often produces the impression that we properly learn nothing from him, if by “learning” we now suddenly understand merely the procurement of useful information. The teacher is ahead of his apprentices in this alone, that he has still far more to learn than they — he has to learn to let them learn. The teacher must be capable of being more teachable than the apprentices. The teacher is far less assured of his ground than those who learn are of theirs. If the relation between the teacher and the taught is genuine, therefore, there is never a place in it for the authority of the know-it-all or the authoritative sway of the official. It is still an exalted matter, then, to become a teacher — which is something else entirely than becoming a famous professor (Heidegger, 1954/1968, p. 15).

Program Provisions

There are approximately thirty-five contractual days per year when all Faculty Associates and Coordinators employed in Professional Programs come together to meet with one another and with Faculty Members and Staff. These ‘student-free’ days are in blocks of eight to ten days at the beginning and ends of the

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 44 semesters, with three-day programs situated at the semester midpoints. The August program time coincides with the beginning and renewal of Faculty Associates contracts, and involves approximately eight days together at the lower mainland SFU campuses, a three-day retreat away from these campuses, and then two weeks of intensive module planning time before the teaching semester begins. The three days in October are when student teachers are, for the most part, in practica. The focus of this program is generally on matters of supervision. The December gathering of eight to ten days begins the week after the teaching semester ends and leads into a two week planning time for the subsequent semester. The three days in February are when student teachers are again engaged or immersed in school practica. Having now had at least a full semester of experience as a Faculty Associate or Coordinator, attention is paid during this program to developing inquiries and articulating pedagogical practices. Then, in April running into May, there are approximately two weeks together followed by a further week at the respective program sites which ends the Faculty Associate contracts. In total, there are seventy days of the regular Faculty Associate contract, including Spring Break, for work that is complementary to the face-to—face instruction and supervision of student teachers.

These times when Faculty Associates, Coordinators, Staff and Faculty Members come together are about professional development writ large. During these times attention is paid to the tasks and responsibilities of the work one is employed to do. Community standards and expectations are made explicit as one learns to function well in a new or continuing work role. Professional development, however, is not fully prescribed in term of work roles and responsibilities. Beyond learning the practicalities of one’s role, a broader learner mindset allows us to appreciate more fully what is entailed in learning to teach. Our various professional work roles are, in fact, derivative of an ongoing interest in what it means to teach children and youth. Professional learning is attuned to the meaning of teaching and to the means that allow us to work with student teachers as they, in turn, start teaching in formal educational settings.

Professional development is lifelong learning. In other words, one’s role as Faculty Associate, Coordinator, Staff or Faculty Member is on a continuum of learning to teach. Provincial certification distinguishes Faculty Associates and Coordinators, academic certification distinguishes the Professoriate, however we are all engaged in, or with, the practice of teaching, and each of us has insight into this practice and the sustained learning that it requires. Professional development is also lifewide learning. In other words, one’s role as Faculty Associate, Coordinator, Staff or Faculty Member is informed by life experiences beyond schools, universities and other formal educational institutions. The lifewide premise of professional development is that learning to teach can be deeply informed by practices seemingly outside teaching in which one is engaged passionately and thoughtfully. Accordingly, the primary task of professional development is to make sense of ever-lengthening and wide-ranging experiences that constitute the depth and breadth of a teaching life.

Professional development programming is the thoughtful, organized, collaborative rendition of what it means to be a learner. While focused on the learning that is germane to becoming a teacher in British Columbia schools, it is inclusive of learning to teach children and youth beyond these formal institutions and, also, of being a learner oneself who can appreciate fully the pedagogical and curricular possibilities that a learner focus suggests for teacher functioning. The professional development programs created for student teachers contextualize learning to teach in BC schools according to established standards of pedagogical and curricular performance, and the diversity of these programs and their distinctive emphases draw learner attention to possibilities of teaching within distinctive communities and locations, within particular subject areas, with certain student ages, with minority groups, linguistically-defined and culturally identifiable, and with students in other provinces and other countries. Similarly, professional development programming for those of us who work in different roles with student teachers (as Faculty Associates, Coordinators, Staff and Faculty Members) contextualizes learning according to the same standards of pedagogical and curricular performance, but more deeply and broadly in terms of the diversities, commonalities and particularities of the professional learning we advocate for student teachers.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 45 Program Purposes

The purposes of designated times when Faculty Associates, Coordinators, Staff and Faculty Members come together are at least four-fold.

First of all, there are Faculty Associate, Coordinator, Staff and Faculty Member competencies to be developed. Attention is paid, through workshops, structured conversations, presentations and activity sessions, to specific tasks of supervision, instruction and program creation requisite for working effectively in Professional Programs. We also deliberately frame such discussions around particular aspects of Faculty Associate, Coordinator, Staff and Faculty Member roles on the reasonable assumption that those of us working in Professional Programs can always become more competent.

The second purpose is that of building community. We want to create opportunities for those of us working in Professional Programs to dialogue, dissent, confront one another and celebrate together, and in so doing, recognize the common as well as the contested meanings which sustain our efforts. Program times bring a recognition of shared and complementary competencies as well as provide opportunities for recognizing differences, tensions and necessary antimonies.

The third purpose has to do with moving Professional Programs to places they might go. As in teaching, we acknowledge the interests of the teacher education community in matters of program development (e.g. issues of curricula, admission of students, assessment and evaluation, enhanced ways of working with school associates, and so on), yet we recognize a potential in addressing these matters for becoming more theoretically and practically astute in which we profess about learning to teach. At times it is desirable for others to help us move beyond our own margins of interest and concern; in this regard, it is to our advantage that Professional Programs are multi-sited and that, collectively, they are situated within an intellectually diverse community, namely a multidisciplinary university.

To these three purposes is added a fourth: activities and ideas that are explored with university colleagues can be taken back to the modules in adapted and modified form and be developed by student teachers and their school mentors when working with children and youth.

Program purposes must be addressed at the appropriate times. For new colleagues it is necessary to accentuate role responsibilities and community sensibilities. Such emphases are needed especially during the August orientation. But as the work is taken up, and particularly during the December and April program times at the completion of the PDP semesters, more interest can be taken in matters of program evaluation and re-design and overall revisioning of possibilities. The seeding of ideas can occur throughout the programs, although here, too, experience doing the work will determine individual and community receptivities to new ideas. These four program purposes can be met by ensuring there are relevant layers to the professional development programs designed for and with faculty associates, coordinators, staff and faculty members.

Program Layers

Layer One: Learning to do the job

1. Learning the work required of Faculty Associates, Coordinators, Staff and Faculty Members: with reference to the Professional Development Programming framework, key tenets, principles of practice and defined work roles. 2. Understanding the university context: with reference to academic culture, SFU policies and procedures, Faculty priorities, and Professional Programs three-year plan. 3. Learning what others do: with reference to Staff responsibilities, Coordinator functions, Professoriate teaching and research.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 46 4. Viewing the wider socio-political context of teacher education: with reference to School District priorities, BC College of Teachers requirements, BC Teacher Federation interests, and Ministry of Education curricular, instructional and policy directions.

Layer Two: Learning the pedagogy of teacher education

1. Coming to see the dispositions of teaching children and youth that transpose to the teaching of adults. 2. Mentoring and learning to teach: learning alongside student teachers; learning from and with others. 3. Understanding the discipline and discourses of teacher education and their connections to the practices of teaching, learning to teach, and the defined curricular and instructional practices of schooling.

Layer Three: Learning to teach extensively and expansively

1. Engaging in a sustained practice of learning to teach 2. Exploring other practices that overlap or connect with the practice of teaching 3. Transmitting, transacting and transforming practices of learning to teach.

Layer Four: Inquiry and research into learning to teach

1. Formulating relevant inquiry and research questions: empirical questions, critical and phenomenological questions. 2. Developing the means of inquiry and research: methods, modes and media. 3. Creating products, publications and the knowledge base requisite for program revisioning.

Program Themes

The following outline indicates the thematic direction of professional programming.

Year one will focus on the dispositions of teaching and on the primary disposition of “pedagogical sensitivity.” This disposition has been previously expanded through reference to the related primary disposition of “other-directedness” and to the secondary dispositions of “reflective capacity” and “critical mindedness” (See Smith, 2004). Our aim shall be to explore “pedagogical sensitivities” even more thoroughly than before and see how these sensitivities are deeply dispositional, child-oriented, other- directed, and place-conscious. Year two will focus further on the embodied, corporeal and animate consciousness of being pedagogically sensitive. Through movement, the arts and the humanities, we will cultivate pedagogical sensitivity as an extensive and expansive set of life practices. Year three will direct attention to the sources and animations of pedagogical sensitivity. Through movement, the arts and the humanities, we will cultivate pedagogical sensitivity as a practice of the life-wide ‘agogic’ awareness.

Program Products

Our professional programming will have been successful if it meets fully the purposes for which it is intended, which are: training in the various roles that professional programs workers carry out; creating a community of life-long and life-wide learners; inquiring and researching ideas and practices of sustained and expansive teacher education; and showing exemplary professional learning that guides the design and conduct of PDP modules. The measure of this success is to be found, not only in program evaluations by the participants, but also in the productivity of inquiry and research, the quality of program design, and the thoughtfulness and comprehensiveness of program revisioning.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 47 Each year in February we will host a PDP conference featuring “pedagogical practices” that have been stimulated by professional programming, first with Faculty Associates, Coordinators, Staff and Faculty Members, and subsequently with Student Teachers in the various modules. Some of this work will be presented in academic conferences. Other work will find outlets in journal publications and graduate thesis work. In addition, Professional Programs will continue, in the tradition of the last two Directorships, to publish exemplary products of professional programming authored by Faculty Associates, Coordinators, Staff, Faculty Members and Student Teachers.

3.2 Professional Programs Report, Program Committee and Support Staff

Professional Programs, in the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser University, administers a set of pre-service teacher education programs that have garnered national respect and international acclaim. Each program is comprised of a combination of practicum experience and professional coursework integral to the understanding of important educational ideas as they pertain to a developing teaching practice. These programs are delivered by both tenure-track and seconded faculty who are also afforded the opportunity to examine their practices in light of the philosophical and institutional frameworks in which these practices take shape. They are responsible for inquiry-based programs which, when successfully completed, lead to certification with the British Columbia College of Teachers. (Smith et. Al, 2004)

The past three years have been full and rich with opportunity, challenge, and achievement. Events have conspired to test us, individually and as a community: our mettle; our integrity and our values; our resilience, resolve, and resourcefulness; our ability to tolerate ambiguity, to live in paradox and, not least, to work productively together as a differentiated/complementary staff to co-create a professional learning community that inspires, fosters teamwork and shared decision-making, and is a crucible for inquiry and professional growth.

In the lively spirit for which we pride ourselves as a community and a Program, we have faced up to our many challenges, using them as opportunities for learning and growth as well as for solid achievement.

Over the past three years, we have stayed the course in meeting our principal objective as set out in the Professional Programs’ Three-Year Plan, 2004 - 2007, viz.:

Over the next three years our challenge will be to attract the best qualified teacher education candidates, to deliver educational programs that are developed in response to and which accurately represent the cultural and educational needs of the communities we serve, and to consolidate existing programs in order to provide the most effective and innovative teacher education programming possible. (ibid.)

And, over this period, we have made excellent progress in the areas identified in the Three-Year Plan as priority— viz., Aboriginal and First Nations education, internationalization, French programming, and health education.

The quality of our overall work remains excellent and continues to be positively received by our students and our various educational stakeholders.

The morale of our community is high; our spirit is strong.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 48 Human Resources

The principal resource of Professional Programs is its members.

The vitality of our work, our continuing ability to attract students, and our repute in the field, all derive ultimately from the strength and quality of our community — Faculty, Program Coordinators and Faculty Associates, administrative and support staff, and students.

Faculty —

Close to half of our tenure-track faculty complement have completed a PDP assignment over the reporting period, or are due to do so over the next three years. Many other Faculty contribute to the PDP through guest teaching, committee work, etc. This represents a sizeable proportion of our tenure-track complement, attesting to the support of Professional Programs in the Faculty.

With the goal of enhancing tenure-track faculty participation in the PDP, we strive:

• to be hospitable and welcoming to all (and especially new) faculty • to explore different assignment configurations, e.g.: - in terms of module fit and specialization - with potential for embedding faculty’s research • to support and mentor faculty’s work in a variety of ways, as appropriate. • to promote a stance of inquiry, critical reflection, and the pursuit of excellence • to create a place for faculty participation in aspects of the governance of the Program (e.g., the PDP Revisioning Committee, the Program-Enhancing Participant Inquiry Funding Committee).

We will give renewed, sustained, systematic attention to supporting and enhancing tenure- track faculty participation in Professional Programs. To this end, to enhance faculty’s leadership and scholarship, teaching, and service contributions, while minimizing role tensions and conflicts, and at the same time maximizing both institutional and faculty pay-offs, we have created guidelines that: - articulate institutional expectations for faculty’s work in Professional Programs; - clarify the range of responsibilities and tasks that may be reasonably expected of faculty in the fulfilling of their assignment; and - set out ways of providing faculty with formative feedback on their work as well as more formal assessment and evaluation. (See Appendix A: A PDP Teaching Assignment.)

Seconded Faculty: Program Coordinators and Faculty Associates —

The annual turnover of our complement of some 45 Faculty Associates (who serve for one year, renewable to a total of two years) is at the level of 50%; the annual turnover of Program Coordinators (who serve for one year, renewable to a total of three years) is at about 35%. These turnovers represent a challenge in terms of continuity but opportunity for Program renewal. a. One of our successful initiatives has been to offer prospective FAs on-campus information meetings, and the distribution of literature in support. b. In order to improve FA selection, we are more systematically calling on the services of current FAs to help identify potential colleagues: we have increased the proportion of interviews to applications; we have frequently extended the search process, returning to the pool of candidates, or going outside that pool; and we are initiating the checking of references in person. c. Capitalizing on our undoubted progress in this regard, we continue to look to more fully reflect, in the composition of our seconded faculty, the variously under-represented — e.g. language base and including

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 49 more male teachers. Currently, two out of three seconded Faculty Associates are women; one out of three are men. Nearly one out of four are men and women of colour. These figures already represent progress in redressing the under-representation in our seconded faculty of men and, too, of men and women of colour. d. We have developed and improved our deployment of Adjunct FAs, e.g.: creating protocols for their recruitment and hiring; setting out clear parameters and guidelines for their deployment; and publishing a handbook to guide their work. e. In order to bring to bear (and be seen to bring to bear) greater thoughtfulness, credibility, and rigour to the reappointment of Program Coordinators and Faculty Associates, beyond their initial one-year term, we are re-interviewing Coordinator applicants for renewal beyond their first year, and we are articulating and formalizing our practice in the assessment and evaluation of the work of FAs. e.g., broadening our ethnic and ….

We will — as exemplified above in a, b, c, d, and e — give renewed, sustained, systematic attention to recruiting and mentoring a cadre of seconded faculty of the highest quality that is, at the same time, increasingly more representative of the general population.

Staff —

Our major goal over the reporting period has been to support and develop staff through attending to issues of identity, job satisfaction, teamwork, performance assessment, and morale. a. Developments in staffing include the reassignment of the PP Recruitment & Admissions Manager from the Dean’s Office to Professional Programs, and the addition of a Special Programs Advisor, part of whose duties include the support of Aboriginal and First Nations education. b. We are working on revisiting job titles, in order to bring nomenclature in line with university-wide practice, and to better reflect the nature of each position. In a complementary way, we are working on revising job descriptions to more closely align these with practice, and to reflect our changing needs and aspirations. c. With a view to maximizing support and productivity, we are exploring and consulting on protocols for staff self-, peer-, and supervisor-assessment and evaluation procedures. d.We are working on enhancing the participation of staff in the work of those they support, e.g.:  participation of APSA staff in Coordinator and FA interviews; of CUPE staff in FA interviews  a ‘shadow day’ per semester when a staff member accompanies an FA on classroom supervision  attendance at IT (Instructional Team) meetings  enhanced participation in substantive aspects of ‘Program’ time e. We support staff in their own professional development through funding of job-related instructional workshops, enrolment in courses f. Staff are participating, both during work hours and on their own time, in a variety of educational opportunities (e.g., in: interviewing; supervisory skills; electronic communications; web maintenance and construction) as well as participating in formal education (including a Bachelor’s, MBA, and PhD program). g. We have been experimenting with ways to reconfigure our main office space, to enhance the working environment and the service we provide; and we are working on attenuating the challenges posed by the deployment of Admissions staff (e.g., our new Special Programs Advisor) in separate areas of our facility.

In our commitment to support and develop the highest quality of staff, we will — as exemplified above in a, b, c, d, e, f and g — give renewed, sustained, and systematic attention to initiatives that address staff issues of job satisfaction, teamwork, performance assessment, morale and enhanced professional competence. (See Appendix B: Staff Resources.)

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 50 Students

Our students continue to evaluate our programs and instruction in the most positive terms.

We have succeeded in helping scaffold and support a strong, active Education Student Association (ESA) that is visible and contributes materially to the life of the PDP (e.g., mounting a series of weekly specialty workshops, etc.).

We look forward to the ESA’s continued strong presence in the life of our community. We are working with the SFSS and the ESA to forge strong links with our students and to make more accessible all kinds of opportunities that our students are currently not availing themselves of (e.g., the Student Development and Programming Centre’s Workshop Series, the Leadership Summit, and the Certificate in Innovative Leadership).

We will give renewed, sustained, systematic attention to initiatives that address issues of student satisfaction and group morale, and we will explore ways of creating, maintaining, and enhancing connections with the graduates of our programs for the purposes of:

- creating continuity over the long-term

- supporting newly graduating and beginning teachers through induction/mentoring programs, and

- laying the ground for faculty-based initiatives in institutional advancement.

A Profile of our programs

In Professional Programs, we are committed to the notion that differences are the essence of individuality and bring about a higher level of common good than striving for homogeneity or hegemony.

To respect and prize diversity is salutary for individual faculty, students and staff as it is healthy for the Faculty as a community. But to seek to smooth out, blunt, mitigate or, worse, eradicate differences, or strive for homogeneity or hegemony, is to diminish ourselves, to stultify ourselves. We believe this for ourselves, for faculty, students and staff; for learning and for teaching. It is one of the hallmarks of a university education and it is one of the enduring privileges that accrue from offering teacher development in a university setting.

Accordingly, this core value informs our admissions policies and procedures, our hirings, our teaching, and our program development and programmatic initiatives. In a university, the dynamism of individual differences allowed their fullest expression in learning and teaching, in scholarship, and in service is ultimately a foundation and safeguard of academic freedom (Zola, 2004).

Admissions —

We are more than maintaining the number and quality of applications to the PDP. For the September 2004 intake, we received 648 applications; this number increased significantly for the September 2005 intake, for which we processed 728 applications; and has stayed level for September 2006. For the January 2005 intake, we received 362 applications and, again, a significant increase was recorded for January 2006, for which we processed 443 applications.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 51 We are the only teacher education program in BC to report an increase in applications for both September 2005 and 2006 intakes. This level of interest in our PDP has allowed us to accommodate the 10% increase in our FTEs over each of the past two years. a. We continue to review our recruitment and admissions policies and procedures, especially in regards to: broadening the ethnic base of our students; increasing the number of Aboriginal/First Nations students, of male students (particularly at the elementary level), of secondary math and science students; and of students for French programs. b. We continue to wrestle with ways to more fully reflect, in the composition of our student body, the variously under-represented and differently-abled; also to track our progress. By motion of PPC, we have recently included the following statement on the Admissions website:

The Professional Development Program at Simon Fraser University values the diversity that students and teachers bring with them into our classrooms, diversity that includes race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, language, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, and religious difference. We have a strong commitment to social justice and anti-racism, and we encourage applicants who have demonstrated educational and/or life experiences that can contribute to this perspective of our program.

In service to our commitment to draw upon and admit the highest quality of teacher candidates, as well as more fully reflecting, in the composition of our student body, the differently-abled and the under-represented (e.g., males —especially in elementary education, First Nations, minority ethnicities, etc.), we will give renewed, sustained, and systematic attention to initiatives that address these issues.

We will also continue to explore, assess, and track different admissions procedures, (some already trailed with the approval of the BC College of Teachers), such as individual and group interviews, different kinds of written responses, and prior learning assessments for such emphases as the Paraprofessional Teacher Education Modules (PTEM), various Indigenous Peoples’ Teacher Education Modules (IPTEMs), and new Developmental Standard Term Certificates (DSTCs).

Overall Composition of Professional Programs —

Our complement of students has been at around 600, in proportion of roughly 2 Elementary to 1 Secondary and Middle School students, 9 female students to 1 male.

Our students are mentored and supervised by 7.25 equivalent full-time Program Coordinators and some 45 Faculty Associates, supplemented by some 10 Adjunct FAs in Educ 405/6. Students are distributed among 20+ different modules of 16 to 32 students per module, with visitors at various times and for various periods, from Mexico, Jamaica, China, etc.

The basic organizational unit is defined as a ‘module,’ comprised of between 16 and 48 student teachers, with a Faculty member and 1-3 Faculty Associates assigned to provide supervision and the majority of instruction during Education 401/2 and Education 405. While all modules are committed to the same overall Professional Development Program goals, there are differences of focus and emphasis among them.

Over three quarters of the modules are K-12. Module focii include:  an age focus, e.g., the all-secondary Secondary or World-as-Curriculum Module  a curricular focus, e.g., the French Language Module, the Languages in Urban  Communities Module, the Fine & Performing Arts Module, and the PE: PlayWorks module  a topical focus, e.g. the Global Communities Module, the Indigenous Peoples’ Teacher Education Module, the International Teacher Education Module  a general focus, e.g., C3, DUC, Lifeworks, Mind & Heart, Pathways.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 52 Other modules define themselves by their site: e.g., the off-campus, community-based Maple Ridge-Mission Module (MRM), the Burnaby Community Module, the Vancouver Community Module, the Fraser Valley Secondary Module, the Alaska Highway Consortium of Teacher Education (AHCOTE) program, sited in Fort St John and Dawson Creek and the Kamloops Indigenous Peoples’ Teacher Education Module (KIPTEM).

Yet other modules are limited to particular populations, e.g., the Paraprofessional Teacher Education Module (PTEM), a bridging certification program for special educational assistants; the Professional Qualification Module (PQP), a re-certification program for immigrant teachers; and the Helping Ease Access to Returning Teachers (HEART) Module for re-certifying teachers combined with the Re-Entry Module for students re- entering Educ 405.

Space: Burnaby and Surrey Campuses —

About half of our programming takes place off-campus. This represents both challenge and opportunity; deficit and strength. The Three-Year Plan, 2004 - 2007 reported:

While an increasing number of professional programs are community-based, it is important that the program area maintains a footing in the university. Seconded faculty, the majority of whom are assigned to professional programs, require administrative access and office space consistent with their work responsibilities. Offices and classrooms are provided by the University of Northern British Columbia, the University College of the Fraser Valley, Northern Lights and Northwest Colleges in our consortia and partnership programs. School districts also provide offices and classrooms for the site-based modules of the PDP. By comparison, the necessary space provisions for the remaining modules at the Burnaby Mountain campus are not being met due to the present demands for funded research spaces and tenure-line Faculty offices. (Smith et. al, 2004) a. Time has only exacerbated our space shortages. On-campus (both in Burnaby and at SFU Surrey) space is at a premium. Space issues continue to prove the biggest impediment to the quality of our programming as to the life of our community: shortage of space (and of suitable space) affects our programming at every level, from scheduling to the kind of learning and teaching that is available to us. Adaptations have to be constantly made; and sometimes, as in the case of the near-loss of access to the Education Gymnasium, programming (as, too, the life of the community) is seriously compromised. b. In response to the university central administration, we have materially increased our presence at SFU Surrey.

In 2006-3, we had two 32-ST modules and one 48-ST module at SFU Surrey, some 7 FAs and 2 Program Coordinators; in 2007-3 there was the movement of a further module of 32-ST to SFU Surrey.

To establish a presence at SFU Surrey and to operate effectively, we have increased the staff support to one Program Assistant and a half-time Program Advisor.

While continuing to maintain a strong presence in Burnaby, as, too, in off-campus communities both in the Lower Mainland and the Interior, we will be ready, if called upon, to move more of our PDP modules from Burnaby to Surrey and to create modules in different off-campus communities.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 53 Aboriginal/First Nations Teacher Education —

We have a history, dating back to 1972, of successful Aboriginal/First Nations Teacher Education programming developed in partnerships with Aboriginal/First Nations’ peoples throughout British Columbia. Professional Programs aims to increase the number of A/FN teachers in the province while, at the same time, preparing non-indigenous pre-service teachers for work in communities with large populations of A/FN children and youth. We have offered these community-based programs in several off-campus sites, including Prince Rupert, Alert Bay, Enderby, Mt. Currie, and Kamloops. More recently PDP co-sponsored the Sto:lo Developmental Standard Teaching Certificate (DSTC) for Indigenous language teachers in Chilliwack. And since 2002 we have offered a campus-based urban Indigenous Peoples’ Teacher Education Module (IPTEM).

There are currently two programmatic designs that address our indigenous focus: the urban-centered Indigenous Peoples’ Teacher Education Module (IPTEM) on Burnaby campus; and a community-based, off- campus project based outside the Lower Mainland — the Kamloops Indigenous Peoples’ Teacher Education Module(KIPTEM), in Kamloops.

Both A/FN and non-indigenous prospective teachers who have extensive experience with A/FN communities are encouraged to apply to these programs. These programs draw on indigenous knowledge and cultural resources in the local communities.

A/FN Teacher Education is a priority area for both the university and the Faculty. Although this priority has experienced setbacks in regards to the hiring of new A/FN faculty, we have recently hired two A/FN Faculty Associates and one of our Program Coordinators has been reassigned part-time to the Dean’s Office to more broadly serve as Advisor to the Dean on A/FN education. a. With the creation, for one year, of the Kamloops Indigenous Peoples’ Teacher Education Module (KiPTEM) in 2006-1, in partnership with TRU, and with an anticipated increase in the Indigenous Peoples’ Teacher Education Module (IPTEM), we are building on our A/FN teacher education programming. b. We plan to increase the current FTE for the Indigenous Peoples’ Teacher Education Module (IPTEM) from 16 to 32. c. We are looking to expand paraprofessional teacher education to A/FN groups in other areas of the province, particularly the Northeast, Northwest and Central sectors of the province, beginning with SD #23, Central Okanagan. We have submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Advanced Education for funding for a PDP aboriginal education program in Kamloops. d. We are looking to work with other A/FN peoples in the province to explore the potential for new DSTC programs, on the model of our work with the Sto:lo peoples in the Fraser Valley during the past reporting period.

e. We continue to look to partner with A/FN individuals and organizations throughout the province to develop community-based A/FN teacher education programs particular to their needs. f. We continue to seek opportunities to infuse the PDP curriculum with an awareness of and sensitivity to A/FN education; and we are more and more looking to make use of A/FN classrooms and schools for Educ 401/402 and Educ 405. g. We have submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Advanced Education to fund 32 students of Aboriginal ancestry for a new community-based Aboriginal/Indigenous teacher education module adapted from the PDP. Completion of the module requirements would lead participants to a standard teaching certificate in the Province of British Columbia. The module will be divided between two community sites, each of which will include several rural and northern school districts in BC that have high Aboriginal student populations. This module addresses the need to increase the number of Aboriginal teachers who have been specifically

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 54 educated to work both with Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children and youth. The proposal for this two- site, community-based Aboriginal Teacher Education Module is designed to respond to the professional development needs of people of Aboriginal ancestry who largely reside in non-urban settings outside the Lower Mainland. In consultation with various local Aboriginal stakeholders in the Province, this module will be offered in at least two of the following areas: 1) within an area encompassing the Upper Cascade, Gold Trail, and southern Williams Lake school districts, 2) within the region served by the Nisga'a school district, or 3) in the Alert Bay region, thus involving the band controlled First Nation's school and local public schools.

Aboriginal/First Nations Teacher Education is a priority area for both the university and the Faculty. Accordingly, Professional Programs will continue to support this area with initiatives as exemplified above.

Paraprofessional Teacher Education — (PTEM)

There are large numbers of student support workers (i.e. school and student support workers, youth and family workers, multicultural home school workers, First Nations support workers, special education assistants, addiction prevention workers, etc.) who work for local school districts and who have extensive post-secondary education or, even, first degrees. Many of these student support workers have an interest in becoming teachers; but, because of financial, familial, academic and/or re-location issues, many are unable to meet the demands of full-time participation in a campus-based teacher-education program.

In response, since 2002, Professional Programs has offered part-time programming designed to address: the professional development needs of working paraprofessionals who want to become teachers; and the needs of school districts for new teachers with special interest and background in Special Education and/or Aboriginal Education.

In this alternative pathway to teacher certification, in order to accommodate for the work schedules and other special needs of working paraprofessionals, Professional Programs has established the Paraprofessional Teacher Education Module (PTEM) which mixes part-time evening and weekend instruction for all portions of the program with a final semester-long practicum component. In offering student support workers who are currently working in the public school system an opportunity to maintain their current employment while preparing for their teacher certification, PTEM is unique in both British Columbia and Canada.

There continues to be interest in and demand for PTEM modules outside the Lower Mainland, on the part of both paraprofessionals and school districts. Creating these external modules in the Interior, Northern and Coastal communities of BC requires careful collaboration between Professional Programs and local school districts, and university colleges and working paraprofessionals. We offered a PTEM, beginning the Spring of 2008, in Kelowna.

PTEM programs continue to offer anywhere between 32 and 48 places to student support workers and other paraprofessionals in the Lower Mainland, offered at the Burnaby and Surrey campuses.

PTEM, a program that is unique in British Columbia and Canada, is now in its fourth year and attracting an increasingly higher quality of applicants, who find employment very readily in response to school districts’ needs in Special Education and Aboriginal Education. PTEM is especially attractive to student support workers of Aboriginal ancestry who work in interior school districts and who might otherwise not be able to enroll in our traditional campus and external site-based teacher education programs. We plan to continue at least two modules of PTEM in the Lower Mainland and to have three additional modules that will relocate every sixteen months to different BC communities.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 55 The Professional Qualification Program (PQP) —

There are a large number of well-qualified foreign-trained teachers in British Columbia who are seeking re- certification for practising in the province, and many school districts are interested in employing these experienced teachers following certification.

In 2000, following a needs-assessment and analysis of research, Professional Programs, with the assistance of a grant from Multicultural Canada and in consultation with a number of stakeholders, submitted a program proposal to the British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT) and the Ministry of Advanced Education. Prospective applicants to the PQP, following evaluation of their credentials by the BCCT, must be recommended by the College to the program. Completion of the three-semester full-time program earns a Certificate of Professional Practice and recommendation to the BCCT for BC certification.

The PQP, a program that is unique in Canada, is now in its sixth year and attracting an increasingly higher quality of applicants, who are lately finding employment more readily (in part because many of them are secondary school teachers in math and science). We plan to increase to 36+, depending on quality of applications, our once-a-year intake of 15-18 teacher candidates (i.e., increasing our one and a half modules to a total of three or more as opportunity arises).

Internationalization of the PDP —

In keeping with the goals and objectives of the Faculty of Education and of the University, Professional Programs continues to expand its commitment to the internationalization of its program and of the experiences of its students. With the mentorship of Ian Andrews, Director of External Programs and International Initiatives and Sharon Wahl, Associate Director of Professional Programs and International Initiatives, and with the enthusiastic support of the Faculty Associate and Coordinator community, Professional Programs has supported and developed a number of exciting educational opportunities.

a. These initiatives include a vibrant and expanding international internship program for post-PDP students. Since September, 2003, PDP has facilitated short term internships in China and Korea for 17 graduates. 6 for Asia in August, 2006 and we are in consultation with 4 other countries for additional internships (Australia, Japan, Finland and Switzerland). b. Professional Programs has also applied for and received funding for two HRDC mobility grants for pre-service education exchanges with Europe. 17 students have completed a teaching semester in Germany, France, England, Spain and Portugal. In return, the PDP has hosted 16 European students. c. Professional Programs has been instrumental in assisting Undergraduate Programs with pre- and post-PDP semester- long field schools. d. Professional Programs works closely with Undergraduate Programs to facilitate the implementation of Educ 384, an innovative course that combines a teaching experience in another country with academic theory in the exploration of global and multi-cultural issues. 70+ students have taken this course over the past 8 years. e. Professional Programs continues to welcome international teacher visits and exchanges. Over the past three years, Dr. Thobeka Mda (South Africa), Dr. Glyn Hughes (Finland) and Dr. Sam Lochan (Trinidad) have spoken with PDP students, Faculty Associates and Coordinators during their visits. In the Spring of 2007, a Faculty member and 3 Faculty Associates traveled to South Africa to visit schools and universities in the Pretoria area. Other Faculty Associates visited Japan in the Summer of 2007. f. Professional Programs has welcomed a number of visiting international teacher educator groups into modules for cross-cultural conversations regarding issues and challenges facing all educators. Teachers and education students from the Foshan province in China, Hong Kong, Korea and Japan have all participated in these on-going dialogues.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 56 g. For the past ten years, Professional Programs has supported the International Teacher Education Modulse (ITEM). Groups of 16 students accompanied by a Faculty Associate travel to Oaxaca, Mexico, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Dalian, China to complete their 401/402 semester. This model has been expanded to Jamaica for the exchange of AHCOTE students with education students from the local university. We have also used this model to launch a practicum experience in teaching French (and learning Spanish) in Cuba. Over 400 students have graduated from the International Teacher Education Module (ITEM).

Internationalization of our programs is a priority for both the university and the Faculty. Accordingly, we will consolidate our programming at the designated sites and seek an additional site for the January PDP student intake.

French Programming —

We have worked closely with the Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs in planning and program development for new and innovative programs in French. We have expanded our FSL, French Immersion and Core French Programming with a new 16 student module in SFU Surrey and plan to be ready for further initiatives. We have over two years created a several-week international practicum experience learning Spanish and teaching French in Cuba, for half a module, anticipated to grow to one module.

French education is a priority area for both the university and the Faculty. Accordingly, we anticipate expanding our FSL, French Immersion, and Core French initiatives by at least 16.

Operation and Delivery of Professional Programs

Principles of Operation and Delivery — We continuously to seek to improve, to strengthen, and to create and innovate, especially with a view to:

a. making our practice faithfully, productively, and economically serve our vision and mission. b. strengthening and deepening the bonds with the various communities we are connected to and embedded in, that stretch outwards beyond ourselves, circles within circles — children and youth; the teachers who teach them and, in particular, the School Associates who host our students; the schools, and the broader community. c. being — and being seen to be — responsive to participants in and stakeholders of Professional Programs d. expanding and extending our vision outwards to new and diverse constituencies, and in innovative ways. e. reflecting in our practices an understanding and integration of the best of research and practice.

We will continue to adhere to these principles, taking care to reflect them and exemplify them in our practice.

Inquiry Initiatives — At the same time as attending to the thoughtful, creative delivery of a rigorous Program with a human face, we have been in various stages of inquiry and ‘try-see’ or ‘ready-fire-aim’ into these (and other) initiatives, some of which are administrative and organizational, others instructional and curricular, and yet others relational to our constituencies and stakeholders:

a. recapitulating, regularizing and recording/reporting our oral culture where this is critical for our work—e.g., the policies/protocols on Faculty Assignments, Adjunct and Part-time FA

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 57 Appointments, and Spring Break; e.g., preparation of various reports and documents for both in-house and/or for external information, public relations and development purposes. b. diversifying the multiple pathways into the PDP, including creating access and programming for populations with diverse qualifications—e.g., initiatives for indigenous peoples; e.g., building on the Para-Professional Teacher Education Module(PTEM) for wider application. c. strengthening and diversifying the PDP by anticipating and identifying educational needs, and responding more sensitively to community aspirations and/or requests, e.g., in partnership with TRU, the KIPTEM module in Kamloops, through 2006; a module focused on international languages in Surrey, from 2005-3; an added module in French, in 2007-1; a possible Educ 405 initiative with SD #46, Sunshine Coast; a possible PE Module in partnership with Douglas College; a potential partnership with Kwantlen University College. d. strengthening and diversifying liaison with school districts, and reviewing and reassessing our ways of acknowledging and ‘rewarding’ the contributions of teachers, schools and school districts to our work and to teacher education; reviewing and improving procedures and protocols for practicum placements. e. building on our innovation to bring to the fore a community serviceLEARNING ethos as, too, an authentic serviceLEARNING dimension in the Ed 401/2 semester.

We will continue to create and develop inquiry initiatives into Professional Programs, including those noted above.

School Placements —

Our students are placed, for their six-week Educ 401/2 school experience and twelve-week Educ 405/6 practicum, in some 200 schools in about 20 school districts. Some two thirds of our students are in four school districts: that is, SD #36, Surrey, and SD #39, Vancouver, together host nearly 40% of our students; SD #41, Burnaby, and SD #43, Coquitlam, together host another 25%.

With the goal of increasing and enhancing effectiveness and satisfaction of the in-school experience (Educ 401) and the practicum (Educ 405), responsibility for placements has been assigned to a single Program Coordinator with the support of the rest of the Coordinating Team, Faculty Associates and School District Steering Committees where applicable. The notion of making school placements through the Office of a single Coordinator was well received and successfully translated into practice: we will develop this initiative.

We will continue to inquire into and develop:

- optimum ways of organizing and delivering the in-school practicum experience

- our work with different ways to identify, collaborate with, and support host schools and School Associates as well as our student teachers.

Revisioning of the PDP —

Change occurs in Professional Programs through different avenues: formally, change may be initiated via Professional Programs’ Coordinating Team (the Director and Program Coordinators), PPC, the Executive, the Faculty, etc.

a. In mid-2005 — at the prompting of the Dean and with the support of the Director, PP, and many, but by no means all, faculty — the Faculty passed the following motion: In order to receive recommendation for certification to the BCCT, all Elementary School students will be required to satisfactorily complete at least one of our mandated courses offered in English

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 58 or French in the teaching of print literacy, reading, and language arts, as appropriate, viz.: Educ 472, 473, 485, 467, 480, 481, and 424, or, as appropriate, any other equivalent course (including Special Topics, or Directed Studies), approved by the Undergraduate Programs Committee (UPC) and the Professional Programs Committee (PPC) as fulfilling the literacy requirement. Early in and throughout each of these courses, instructors will ensure that issues of differences in language, race, gender and class, and how these may powerfully shape students' access to literacy, will be prominently considered. We will assess the value of these changes over the next year. b. In 2004-3, under the auspices of PPC and with the participation of the Executive and other faculty members, we extended and formalized the revisioning of the PDP process, which had The Revisioning Committee, led by Lannie Kanevsky and now chaired by Ann Chinnery, includes representation of continuing members of PPC and the Executive; interested members of the Faculty are periodically invited according to need. The inquiry work of the Revisioning Committee has focused on: - identifying and meeting needs that can be addressed in the short term; and - planning for the longer term that can be implementated several years hence, following consultation with the faculty. c. For longer term implementation, we are exploring: - the creation of appropriately informative and facilitative pre- or co-requisite coursework — of both a foundational nature (e.g., courses in diversity, literacies, etc.), as well as in substantive curriculum (e.g., a course in language learning and teaching); and/or a qualifying semester, as a means to lengthening, giving more substance to, and enhancing the student’s professional preparation; - embedded coursework through Educ 401/2 and 405 - a 12-month integrated year based on the school calendar to replace the university 3-semester Educ 401/402, 405 and 404 - a variety of other ideas, e.g., in recruitment and admissions, etc.

We will continue to attend to the formal revisioning process of the PDP, launched in the fall of 2004. Our plan is to bring to implementation changes that issue from recommendations of the Revisioning Committee in consultation with the broader Professional Programs community and the Faculty at large.

Early or Direct Entry B.Ed. and BGS in Educational Studies —

Together with Undergraduate Programs, and in close collaboration with David Paterson, Director, we are co-creating a Direct Entry or Early Entry B.Ed or BGS.

Together with Undergraduate Programs, we will continue to explore these and related initiatives, and we will put in place a BGS in Education — a non-specialist Bachelor’s degree program that introduces students to the field of Education.

Information & Communication Technologies —

The CET has provided strong and consistent support to Professional Programs, in manifold ways. We appreciate the CET’s resource, technical, and instructional support in the use of computers, the web, information and communication technologies and, in particular, FirstClass.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 59 Together with the CET, we will continue to explore and implement the productive use of informational and educational technologies in the delivery of Professional Programs — e.g., enhancing the use of FirstClass conferencing system for the W (writing-intensive) designation of Educ 401/402 and Educ 405; and field-testing and putting in place the use of e-portfolios as a means of addressing BCCT requirements for the random auditing of student teachers.

W (writing-intensive) Designation for Educ 401/2 & Educ 405/6 —

Together with Undergraduate Programs, in collaboration with David Paterson, Director and Carolyn Mamchur, FOE & FAL Faculty member we have secured a ‘Writing-Intensive’ designation for Educ 401/2.

We will continue to support the curricular work needed to justify the (W) Writing Intensive designation of EDUC 401/2/ serviceLEARNING —

The call to service is the call to live and move beyond self. “Service is the rent each of us pays for living—the very purpose of life, and not something you do in your spare time” writes the African-American educator and advocate for children, Marian Wright Edelman.

A ‘service learning’ dimension or component was introduced in the fall of 2004, as an expectation for all students completing Educ 401/2. This was a successful initiative — recognized with a Volunteer Vancouver's 2005 Innovation Award citation as well individual awards to students — which engendered much learning for all and brought a great deal of satisfaction to many schools and the general community.

We plan to strengthen and diversify the serviceLEARNING dimension of the PDP, assessing it and reporting on it more formally.

Induction/Mentoring Programs —

We have been inquiring about mentoring/induction initiatives for new and/or beginning teachers provincially, in collaboration with selected school districts, the BCTF, PSAs, etc. Exploratory conversations have been held with SD #42, Maple Ridge, SD #41, Burnaby, SD #39, Vancouver, SD #37, Delta, SD #60 Peace River North, and the Provincial Intermediate Teachers’ Association (PITA).

We plan as a priority and in partnership with school stakeholders (and in limited collaboration with Field Programs, as their priorities allow), the launching of a variety of ‘try/see’ or ‘ready/fire/aim’ induction/mentoring programs for new and beginning teachers.

Relationships, Reporting & Research

We are a community, communities — communities of learning and teaching, communities of scholarship, communities of practice. Our communities connect with and are embedded in still more communities, stretching ever outwards beyond ourselves, circles within circles within circles.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 60 To these communities we have responsibilities and obligations. “Our lives extend beyond our skins, in radical interdependence with the rest of the world,” in the words of Joanna Macy, eco- philosopher and general systems theorist.

Relating with our Constituencies and Stakeholders —

a. We are taking care to keep in connection with our various educational stakeholders and constituencies, e.g.: - We keep in regular, close contact with the BC College of Teachers, the BC Teachers’ Federation, and school districts, punctiliously participating in their meetings and fora, consulting and dialoguing with them, inviting them to present to our students. The BCTF makes a major, all-day presentation to our students once a year, and the BCCT regularly presents on issues of professional interest; school districts hold job fairs on campus. b. We are taking special care to support and contribute materially to the Dean’s various initiatives in community outreach and public education, e.g., - exploring educational issues through public lectures and fora (e.g., the Alfie Kohn lecture; the in-house forum on Civil Disobedience, during the teachers’ job action; etc.) - a project for pre-PDP students to deliver remunerated literacy support for special-needs populations.

We will give renewed, sustained, systematic attention to supporting and enhancing our relationships with our various constituencies and stakeholders.

Communicating and Reporting —

We place premium value on regularly reporting on our work and communicating frequently and regularly both within our program area and the Faculty, as also, with our various external constituencies and stakeholders.

a. We are making progress on the reinvention of our website and rendering it amenable to regular, routine updating. We work closely with Ruby Ng, Associate Director, Communications to communicate with our various constituencies and publicize our work in various ways. b. We are launching a series of Occasional Reports both for in-house use and dissemination to the broader community, other educational stakeholders and potential institutional partners. The goal of such Reports is to render our work more visible and accountable, to make it more broadly and better known and understood, and to prepare ourselves for upcoming Program and Faculty of Education external evaluations.

Occasional Reports would focus on, for example: - our work (or parts/aspects of it) in Aboriginal and First Nations education - our long and varied experience with community-based programming - our experience with institutional partnerships in the delivery of the PDP — e.g., with TWU, Northern Lights College, the College of New Caledonia, the University College of the Fraser Valley - the landmark AHCOTE project - the UCFV Module - school placements - the internationalization of the PDP experience - the PQP initiative - the PTEM initiative - serviceLEARNING - etc., etc.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 61 We will continue to give priority to the development of frequent, regular communication and reporting, both in-house as, too, to our various constituencies and stakeholder communities

Inquiry, Research, and Scholarly Publication —

We continue to aspire to fostering and promoting, in various ways among faculty, seconded faculty and students, an inquiry base to professional development and in Professional Programs.

a. We encourage and support faculty and graduate students undertaking formal research in the PDP. Avenues of research funding are being explored to sustain the inquiry interest. b. We have initiated some in-house research into aspects of the PDP of particular interest: e.g., into PTEM, PQP, the serviceLEARNING notion, etc. c. We continue to explore the notion of linking Faculty Associate work to graduate programs through adjunct FA assignments that allow for module assistant work and an active research agenda within the modules. d. We continue to explore the notion of providing Research Assistant positions within the PDP to document and assess current innovations, trends, and directions. e. We are building on our few occasional publications to initiate a more sustained program of scholarly and curriculum publications, e.g.: - Starting with the re-publication of Selma Wassermann’s Asking the Right Question: The Art of Teaching, an out-of-print ACEI Fastback, publish bi-annually a scholarly work by one of our faculty for presentation (in lieu of our traditional token gifts) to our School Associates. - Under the auspices of the 40th Anniversary celebrations, we published You in Me, Me in You: Narratives of Learning and Teaching, a collection of learning and teaching narratives and reflections by faculty, Coordinators and FAs, SAs, students and staff. - We have and are preparing a series of publications to serve as the basis for building part of a longer-term PDP curriculum — e.g. Notes from Panama and serviceLearning. f. A sizeable number of tenure-track faculty and some third of our FAs and Coordinators have presented at WestCAST and the 40th Anniversary International Teacher Education Conference this Spring. We will expand the horizons of these presentations to include other venues, e.g., CSSE and AERA. g. We have implemented in 2008, Spring, a conference for School Associates, Faculty Associates, Coordinators, Faculty members and program staff a conference titled Pedagogical Practices: Embodied, Relational and Diverse. This conference will be hosted each year as a venue for PDP research. h. We continue to work to shift our community’s perceptions of what has traditionally been known as ‘pro-D’ funding, to funding for ‘program-enhancement practitioner inquiry’, to reflect the intent and purpose of this funding as it has in practice evolved. Between 1997- 2004, a shift gradually took place from the notion of ‘pro-D’ funding, with its accompanying school-system derived implication of personal/professional entitlement, towards a notion of support of program-enhancement practitioner inquiry, with its sense of “the pursuit of scholarly inquiry within the delivery of programming, the presentation of such inquiry in scholarly fora, and the bringing to bear of those inquiries to the enhancement of Professional Programs”. Such a notion recognizes and supports the scholarly merits of inquiry by our differentiated community as, too, the scholarly aspirations of our student teachers.

We will continue to pay particular attention to:

 renaming the funding that supports program-enhancing practitioner inquiry  developing adequate adjudication criteria for the disbursement of funding to support these inquiries and their presentations  setting in place a program organization for making such adjudications  situating the notion of ‘program-enhancement practitioner inquiry’ within a broader program emphasis on inquiry-based teacher education.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 62 In various ways, we will give renewed, sustained, systematic attention to supporting and enhancing a collective vision of practitioner inquiry as a foundation to Professional Programs and a base to professional development.

References —

Heidgegger, Martin (1954/1968). What is called thinking? (translated by J. Glenn Gray). New York: Harper & Row.

Smith, Stephen (2004). The bearing of inquiry in teacher education: The S.F.U experience. Professional Programs, Faculty of Education.

Smith, Stephen, et al. (2005). Professional Programs: Three year Plan, 2004-2007, Faculty of Education, SFU.

Zola, Meguido, et al. (2004). “Standards and Criteria and Methods of Assessment for Promotion and Tenure at each of the ranks of Assistant, Associate and Full Professor: A Statement under the SFU Tenure & Promotion Policies & Procedures, A11.01 -A11.06, approved and ratified by the Dean & Faculty of Education at the Faculty of Education Meeting, 29th March, 2004”, Faculty of Education, SFU.

Zola, Meguido et al. (2006). Attainment of Standards Report (ASR) Interim Report to the Association of British Columbia Deans of Education (ABCDE) and the British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT), Burnaby, BC: Faculty of Education, SFU.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 63 4. An Interdisciplinary Field: Undergraduate Programs in the Faculty of Education

4.1 Opening Doors and Building Bridges, David Paterson, Director, Undergraduate Programs

The Undergraduate Programs office has responsibility for the development and delivery of undergraduate courses and programs in Education. As such, our program area is integrated closely with the Professional Development (Teacher Education) program. Each summer, PDP students complete their EDUC 404 comprising a selection of pre-service teacher education courses.

Undergraduate Education courses also fall into eleven minor concentrations. These are briefly summarized as follows:

Minor in Counselling and Human Development Strong theoretical and critical foundation on which to base and evaluate counseling and teaching practices aimed at enhancing human development. This program is articulated as a pre-requisite to the Counselling Psychology MA/MEd program.

Minor in Curriculum and Instruction Designed for students requiring theoretical and practical expertise in contemporary approaches to curriculum development and instructional design.

Minor in Education and Technology Provides a structure of undergraduate studies of education and technology.

Minor in Educational Psychology For a teaching career, the minor provides a research base foundation in the psychology of teaching and learning underlying a professional studies program. For others, the minor articulates applied psychology serving one of our society’s most important aims, education of people of all ages.

Minor in Environmental Education Develops teachers’ skills in the design and operation of environmental and outdoor education programs from kindergarten through grade 12, and in the organization and operation of residential and day centre outdoor education, wilderness outdoor recreation, and other interdisciplinary environmental school programs.

Minor in French Education Explores contemporary second language teaching and learning theory, as well as experientially based approaches to French language curriculum and instructional design.

Minor in International and Global Education Explores an interdisciplinary, experientially-based approach to international and global education so that appropriate learning experiences can be crated and infused in any given elementary and secondary course.

Minor in Learning and Developmental Disabilities Enhances understanding of learning and developmental disabilities, and explores an interdisciplinary approach to the health, educational and care of infants, children and adults with disabilities.

Minor in Physical Education This minor program provides students in the professional development program with competence to teach physical education.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 64 Minor in Secondary Mathematics Education This minor will interest pre-service teachers who are considering a career in teaching secondary mathematics.

In addition to the Minor concentrations, the faculty provides the following Post Baccalaureate Diplomas (PBD).

PBD in Counselling and Human Development (new) This PBD is currently at the “Notice of Intention” (NOI) stage of progress. At the time of writing it has been “received for information” by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies.

PBD in Early Childhood Education This program provides a focus for students wishing to work with children aged three through eight.

PBD in Environmental Education This program will be of interest to practicing teachers who want to assist students to develop a greater awareness and understanding of the broadly defined environment. This program encompasses aspects of education in, for, and about the environment.

PBD in French and Education The Department of French and the Faculty of Education jointly offer this post baccalaureate diploma comprising a set of organized courses for practicing of future French teachers.

PBD in Special Education This program offers educators and healthcare professionals who work with children and adults with disabilities the opportunity to consolidate course work in the area of lifespan development and special education in a way that facilitates a common ground for discussion.

Mathematics Sciences Specialization (under review) This program is currently under revision before SCUS. The aim is to offer a constellation of courses designed to prepare high school mathematics instructors.

On February 5, 2008 the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies reviewed and approved our proposal for a new Bachelor of General Studies (BGS) degree. Our new BGS proposal incorporates the existing Education minors into a degree program that does not include PDP. This new degree will form the basis or our plans to begin directly admitting students to the Faculty of Education in their first year. We believe the BGS will also be of interest to students in fields such as adult education, early childhood education, or students who live abroad and do not wish to teach in the province of British Columbia. The BGS proposal is attached as an Appendix to this document.

The new SFU Undergraduate Curriculum Initiative was launched in September, 2006. All students admitted after are expected to meet the new W/Q/B (Writing Intensive, Quantitative, Breadth) requirements. Following an important restructuring of the our courses we now offer the “W” component as an embedded course in PDP along with a healthy number of WQB courses at the upper and lower division.

Another launch in September 2006 was the Foundations of Academic Literacy (FAL X99) course. This is an additive credit program undertaken by our faculty to provide beginning undergraduate students with basic instruction and confidence in academic writing. This new program has been widely lauded across campus, is the subject of ongoing research (see attached Appendix). It should be noted that Faculty of Education doctoral students instruct many sections of FAL X99.

Our Undergraduate Programs special projects include the India and Indonesia Field Schools, the Laval French language experience for PDP students, and an environmental education experience.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 65 The Undergraduate Programs area stands for excellence in instruction as evidenced by student feedback, ongoing peer review, curricular updates, and the response from the field. We are responsible for the core academic content of PDP, a range of minor concentrations, FAL X99, a new BGS degree, and innovative or necessary service courses. Our Faculty members are highly involved through academic oversight by cognate groups and participation on the Undergraduate Programs Curriculum committee.

Emerging Issues

As the first administrative unit to locate it’s decision-making core at the Surrey campus, the Undergraduate programs area has been working on issues of inter-campus communication and coordination. We are a small unit, split into two locations. While the wider faculty discussion includes areas of “one faculty, two campuses” governance and representation, Undergraduate Programs is exploring practical solutions to the challenges posed to daily operations.

An advantage of locating our operation in Surrey has been the opportunity to articulate our programs directly with the undergraduate programs currently underway on the Surrey campus. We are aware that Explorations, Tech 1, and Science Yr 1 students may ultimately become our students and find a career path towards teaching. This direct articulation with emerging Surrey undergraduate programs affords our faculty with the opportunity to engage with these students long before they apply for PDP.

With the onset of our new BGS program in addition to FAL X99 and EDUC 100 (Issues in Education) our Faculty is engaging directly with SFU Undergraduate students in their first year of study. This is new for us, and for the first time represents an opportunity to build an undergraduate students culture within the Faculty. The BGS represents an interdisciplinary cohort of students by definition. Our faculty will be challenged to serve as a home for this diverse group from the onset of their post-secondary studies. This structural change will impact the blend of undergraduate students enrolling in our programs

As a faculty of Education there is a solid emphasis on teaching and learning at all levels. The quality of our undergraduate instruction continues a subject for ongoing review by the Programs committee. Faculty members and more experienced limited term faculty mentor beginning instructors and students new to teaching. Professors in cognate areas closely monitor the curriculum of Distance Education and on-campus course offerings.

Undergraduate curriculum changes continue to challenge this faculty. While we now have an appropriate level of “W/Q/B” course offerings, we remain vigilant in insuring that all instructors are appropriately prepared to instruct these offerings. Instructors of “Writing Intensive” courses have been provided the opportunity to take part in “Writing for Learning” sessions designed to a curriculum of Distance Education and on-campus course offerings.

The title of this section “Opening Doors and Building Bridges” speaks to the ability of this unit to expand into the new areas of direct entry and new degree pathways. We are doing so on multiple campuses with continued emphasis on integration with PDP, articulation with Graduate programs, and development of a new classification of undergraduate students within Simon Fraser University.

Please see Appendices:

Undergraduate Programs Three-Year Academic Plan Bachelor of General Studies Degree Foundations of Academic Literacy

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 66 4.2 Undergraduate Students in the FOE, Rob McTavish, PhD Student, RA

Undergraduate Questionnaire FOE

The FOE has undergraduate students from across the university, and we do not have ready or reliable ways of communicating electronically with all of those students, so to get some current information and impressions from this more dispersed undergraduate student population, we requested course instructors to pass out in class, paper copies of a short questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed with the help of graduate students who were also TA's or instructors for undergraduate education courses.

Questionnaires were distributed to all undergraduate instructors. Students completed the questionnaires in class during the first few weeks of the semester. 338 questionnaires were collected in total.

Participants The majority of participants who completed the questionnaire planned on becoming a teacher; however this varied across disciplines (see figure 1).

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 All Undeclared Combined Yes 11 161

Figure 1: Plans to become a teacher by discipline

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 67 Most of the participants had completed one or two years of study but only one or two education courses (see figure 2).

250

200

150

100

50

0 EDUC Undeclared Total Credits 44 30

Figure 2: Credits by Discipline

Course of Studies

Relevant, informative, practical, interactive, engaging, insightful, challenging and rewarding were common terms used to describe EDUC courses. Overall students were very happy with the courses in the FOE, and often favourably compared courses in the FOE to courses and instructors in other disciplines. Many of the responses to this question were in relation to courses not in the FOE, 16 responses spoke directly to non-FOE courses. Negative comments were typically focussed on non-FOE courses and/or large class sizes.

A frequent comment (seventeen students) was that discussions and seminar type classes were extremely helpful for their learning, and/or that the acceptance of diversity created a warm and inviting learning environment, where students were able to express their ideas. Respondents also spoke of the importance of active learning environments where they were able to participate, “I am currently enrolled in my first education course as an elective. I absolutely love it. The new ways of teaching by participation are extraordinary.”

Another common response (ten students) was an appreciation for the practicality of many classes. Students reported that they appreciate the diversity of courses offered, enabling them to take courses “of interest” as well as those required as prerequisites. One student reported, “University has challenged me to evaluate my own concepts in/from the world. I don't always appreciate the immediate moment, but I usually end up grateful for alternative points of reflection”, while another student wrote “Education courses accept diversity. They are quite "open" to different perspectives and opinions in education theories, and even in practical teaching methods. I really feel comfortable about this character of all education courses.”

Students reported that they learned skills to be both better teachers and better students. Some comments on study skills were “Understanding development and learning processes has aided the improvements of my own study habits but philosophical discussions have made me question the things I take for granted resulting in the broadening of my perspectives”, and “The discussion of education really opened up my mind and I now find myself a better student.”

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 68 Students did request that fewer courses be offered online, presumably they are referring to Distance Education courses, where only 4 of the 29 distance courses are not online, students also requested that courses currently only available through Distance Education be offered face to face at least once a year, such as EDUC 222.

Other students requested more diverse course offerings at Burnaby and HC, “Overall, I have had great experience with the education department. However, there are not enough 3rd and 4th year EDUC classes in the evening, especially at Harbour Centre and Burnaby Mountain.” Feelings about courses being offered in Surrey were mixed, with students requesting more counselling psychology courses in Surrey, while other students complained about the commute to Surrey, “Please offer more education classes in Burnaby. These past few semesters I've had to travel to Surrey because they weren't offered in Burnaby”.

Large class size was often reported as being an impediment to students learning. Some students reported that the larger classes are too impersonal, and that there isn’t an opportunity to interact one on one with the instructor. Students also reported that they felt intimated in such large groups and stated that they weren’t able to interact in a manner they felt would be beneficial to their learning.

Educative Approaches

Of those who provided an evaluative response, the majority (approximately 80%) had a positive perception of the educational approaches they had experienced. Most of the students who had a negative perception of the educational approaches had few (3) or no credit hours in education and may have been speaking about their educational experience at SFU in general.

Of the students who described specific methods, the vast majority of these methods were constructivist, student-centred, and/or interactive in nature (eg. discussions, reflections, hands-on experiences, sharing, co- operative learning). For the most part, students appreciated these types of methods.

“Pretty much in all education courses I took we had to reflect on readings and what we discussed in class. So I think this is a good educative approach because it leads to learn critically.”

“Because their specialty is in teaching, they have excellent approaches in the ways they teach their students. The way they involve the students into their lectures.”

Other positive comments about the types of methods students experienced in the FOE were in relation to the “openness” to different instructional methods, different learning styles and different perspectives.

“Open = the educators in Canada seem to be multi-cultural and open-minded about different approaches.”

“I really like the education classes because I feel that my personal opinion in important, recognized”

“Effective since it is sensitive to needs and styles of learners.”

Some students compared the methods used in the Faculty of Education to the instructional methods used in other faculties. In most, if not cases, the methods used in the faculty of Education were viewed more favourably. “The education department does an exemplary job at imparting knowledge and skills; however, other department need work, especially psychology.”

Instructors

Only 10 respondents reported that FOE instructors did not meet their expectations, with complaints generally indicating specific problems such as instructors being too focussed on their research, inexperienced TA’s, and disorganized instructors. These 10 students tended to be students near the end of their studies with an average of 112 credits, with an average of 18 EDUC credits.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 69 The majority of students reported that FOE Instructors either met or exceeded expectations, with terms such as approachable, passionate, innovative, compassionate, expert, available, and communicative being used repeatedly as descriptors. The most common adjective used to describe FOE Instructors was “passionate”. One student reports “Your instructors in EDUC are so passionate and caring toward students that I almost wanted to switch my major!!” Instructors were described as being passionate about their teaching and commended for ensuring students were well supported. Several students responded with comments about how much instructors “thoroughly enjoyed teaching”. This joy of teaching has created an environment where students feel well supported. An example from a Psychology major with 120+ credits (22 in EDUC) reports “They have exceeded my expectations. All very warm, genuine people who truly care for, and want to help you succeed. A very nice change.”

One respondent identified two particular instructors as not meeting expectations, primarily due to the their focus on research “Most of them have been wonderful: knowledgeable and clearly passionate about what they do. A couple have been too wrapped up in their own research (EDUC 220 and 320).”

Help and Support

Students overwhelmingly report that the greatest help and support for their studies has come from the faculty and staff in the FOE. Their learning experiences and the resources such as the CET, library, learning commons and course materials have been helpful, with few students reporting on specific tools such as WebCT and online course materials. It appears that a portion of the respondents are ESL and report the value of having the ability to work on their writing skills in courses like FAL099. Many students (98/338) didn’t respond to this question, or responded that since it was their first course in the faculty they had no opinion at this time.

Comments about the availability of staff and instructors were common, with the majority of respondents reporting they felt both the staff and instructors provided good support and were readily available both face to face and through email. Tools such as WebCT were thought to help facilitate such interaction, however some respondents reported they preferred less online delivery methods and more face to face offerings. One student who supported the use of WebCT wrote “The discussion section of webCT was of greatest help and support.”

The CET was seen as being a great resource for supporting students, some comments were “The use of the CET lab has helped me greatly”, “The CET is a great resource!”

Small class size and one-on-one instruction was also mentioned as being the greatest help to students’ studies, one student wrote “the small number of students in a class and getting to know the instructor and the classmates around me helped a lot”, while another reports “I love how all the classes are small. It allows for increased attention and learning”.

Impediments

Only 116 of 338 respondents reported any type of impediment, however many reported that it was their first course in the faculty and they had minimal experiences to report from. Common themes from those who did respond were high tuition, individual incidents or people, poor learning environments, unavailable course offerings, large classes, and both the over reliance of distance education and the lack of courses available through distance education.

Five of the 116 respondents reported that a lack of financial aid available for PDP or high tuition were impediments to their learning in the FOE. These respondents varied from new students with less than 9 credit hours to students with over 150 credit hours. Student service costs increased tuition at a time when tuition freezes were removed, which compounded the increase, which on their own would have been significant. Responses weren’t very descriptive, typically just one word “tuition”.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 70 Several respondents reported individual incidents, such as negative interactions with staff or instructors, and email communication they perceived as being rude as being impediments, however these were often single interaction incidents, or seemed superficial, such as feeling that certain staff members required more hours on campus, such perceived impediments should have little long-term effects on students success.

Multiple responses mentioned the state of the classrooms in the FOE, one comment is very telling, “The rooms are like storage spaces, not like actual learning environment. I feel like I'm in a dungeon surrounded by someone’s garage sale items.” Other comments of note are: “Honestly, the classrooms. They are quite dismal and uninspiring”, and “We deserve better classrooms.”

Respondents reported both too many and too few course offerings available through Distance Education. The majority of Distance Education offerings (19/29) are 400 level courses, which may suggest that students want more upper level courses offered on campus and more lower level courses made available through Distance Education.

Five of the 116 respondents reported that class size was an impediment to their learning. More than one student reported that large classes made it difficult to get to know the instructor or to participate in discussions. It is believed that one group of the participants was obtained from a large survey course that typically has over 200 students. One such response states that “large class size can make even tutorials impersonal when nobody knows classmates names.”

One very interesting point mentioned by one student was in relation to the curriculum, “Teacher Ed training does not include a mandatory component on multiculturalism nor on learning disabilities. Poorly trained for real classrooms.” Other respondents spoke of too few upper level classes being offered, while others spoke of too many courses being only offered in the summer semester.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 71 5. Advanced Study, Advanced Practice: Graduate Programs in the Faculty of Education

Prepared by Heesoon Bai (Director) Michele Schmidt (Associate Director) with help by Karen Kirkland, Carol Magambo, Daniela Elza, and the Entire GP Staff

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 72 “Laughter is the sound of sudden knowledge.”

“We get our authority from authenticity.”

“The story itself pulls us because we are fascinated by the way time can unfold itself the end finally revealed as present in the beginning.” —David Weinberger (2002) small metaphors loosely joined laughter is the sound of (sudden knowledge) a proximity (an intimacy) where walls are just (rain) we walk through and are absorbed in the poetic of language. the reader is grounded in what is built out of another’s words. we get our authority from authenticity placed just so that we are (closer to the sound of our own knowing to our— selves (words mere vehicles) resonating

the story itself pulls us through its narrow streets cracked windows creaking stairways

because we are fascinated by the way the buildings look with their green copper roofs

time can unfold itself in front of the bakery the old sign

the end finally revealed as Present in the Beginning the smell of the brick oven waking me up in my grandmother’s house.

—poem by Daniela Bouneva Elza (PhD student in Philosophy of Education) small metaphors loosely joined was first published in Paideusis Volume 15 (2006), No. 2 p. 97. Reference: Weinberger, D. (2002). Small pieces loosely joined: A unified theory of the web. Massachusetts: Perseus.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 73 Introduction

Dear Reviewers and other Readers of this Document,

Welcome to Graduate Programs!

As the five-week old newly appointed Director of Graduate Programs, I felt rather inadequate for the task of presenting a comprehensive picture of our work in Graduate Programs. How much do I know about all the intricacy and complexity of Graduate Programs? However, true to the governance structure of our Faculty, which is defined by participatory democracy of a peer culture, Graduate Programs, too, is a work of many hands, including esteemed colleagues who teach and research, administrators and staff members who oversee and support the daily operations of everything to do with graduate programs, and of course, all our wonderful and brilliant graduate students. Knowing this, I have turned to them for assistance and co-creation of this document. This has been a fruitful and thankful exercise. This document, too, is then a work of many hands. I am especially grateful to Tom O’Shea, previous Director of Graduate Programs, whose 3-year Plan was extensively used in this report.

I have understood that the first value of this report is self-study: coming to learn and understand in greater depth what we are doing, where we are going, and where we wish to go. I attest to this value: not only have I learned so much so fast in such short time, but also by sharing and working with this document for months and years to come, I anticipate that we will be deepening our understanding, sharpening our vision, and smoothening out the operations, of what we are doing in Graduate Programs.

Curriculum and Pedagogy

The heart of education is curriculum and pedagogy, for they are the heartbeat of our programs. In what follows, we study our programs from a variety of perspectives and in a variety of voices.

Charting the Growth of the Programs, Variety, and Enrollment

(The following is a document prepared by Michele Schmidt, Associate Director of Graduate Programs, based on the previous Director’s 3-year plan that was composed in August of 2006 . Michele’s and Heesoon’s annotations are given here and there in brackets.)

Tom O’Shea, the past Director of Graduate Programs proposed several specific initiatives in the 2004-2007 3- year plan all of which have made progress over the past year:

1. First Nations At present we have two active First Nations faculty members. The most recent MEd program in Chilliwack finished in Summer 2006 with possible plans to open another program. There has been significant SFU representation in Haida Gwaii and Prince Rupert serving a number of First Nations educators. Discussions regarding an SFU First Nations PhD program continue. Discussions regarding an EdD cohort focused on First Nations issues petered out following one first nation faculty departure. A bridging program to help First Nations students access graduate programs is currently in progress. As of 2007, ten students have self- identified themselves as Aboriginal students in the off-campus MEd programs and two in EdD programs.

2 Health Education A Health faculty member was hired in 2005 to provide leadership in the area of health education. The program has been developed and is now in the second year of implementation with a team of MEd/MA students in Curriculum and Instruction specializing in Health and Physical Activity (HEPA), which began in September 2007. This program was designed around both coursework in theory and curriculum but also has

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 74 a large practical component which allows students to work with international colleagues in the health education area. The first international relationship will be with Germany in the summer of 2008. 3. EdD Program in Educational Leadership

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education Graduate Programs Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership

Background The EdD in Educational Leadership was approved by the Faculty of Education University and BC government in May 1997. This was the culmination of a number of years work of design and consultation both within and outside the university and represented a significant commitment by the Faculty of Education to the preparation of mid career individuals for senior position within the educational world.

It represented a long-term commitment by the Faculty and the university to address the education of future and practicing leaders as well as seeking to improve the governance of education in the province.

The program was designed to operate on a cost recovery basis, Students benefit financially by retaining the salary of their full time jobs, while gaining the tax advantage of full time student status.

In 2002 a review of the EdD program was initiated by Kelleen Toohey, Director of Graduate Programs with a mandate was to review the program overall, identify salient issues and make a set of recommendations for improvement. The recommendations made by the committee included changes to the program, improved administrative support, an increase in the number of core faculty which would include at least one that has extensive administrative experience in the public school system in BC, or at least an intimate and long-term acquaintance with the field.

The present program is based both on the original concept of a humanistic, non-technicist, practice-based program as well as the recommendations made by the 2002 review.

Present Program The EdD is designated by the SFU senate as a professional degree. It has two main elements; the study and research of specific aspects of educational leadership practice culminating in a thesis and the development of individual candidates in relation to their professional work culminating in improved practice.

(a) The research element while focusing on leadership broadly conceived is also intended to make an original contribution to the study of practice, policy or theory. (b) The practice element seeks to develop the qualities, understandings and knowledge necessary for leadership in complex educational environments that requires the exercise of individual responsibility and autonomous initiative.

The EdD in Educational Leadership program is designed for the mid-career professional educator who has an interest in advanced study of the educational enterprise, with particular focus on the practice of leadership, broadly conceived. It combines a critical analysis of educational theories, an intensive scrutiny of contemporary institutions and practices in their social/cultural contexts with the opportunity to conduct high quality practice focused research.

The program is designed to accommodate the demanding schedule of today’s education professional. Classes meet at least once per month; the time frame is an extended weekend that spans all day Friday and Saturday. There is also a summer institute at SFU in July of the second year. The format affords concentrated individual and small group study complemented by extended dialogue with professors, colleagues, and occasional guests.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 75 The degree is based on a concept that looks beyond notions of educational leadership as the application of generic management techniques and seeks to prepare leaders for situations where technique alone is not sufficient. Such situations arise not only because of the normative nature of the enterprise, but also because of the judgments necessary for the ethical and communicative leadership of educational institutions.

The curriculum is founded on the claim that three bodies of knowledge and understanding provide the foundations of any preparation for public life: first, the humanities, second, the social sciences, and third, practical expertise.

Because this is a professional doctorate, student theses are expected to address an issue that is applicable to the practice of educational leadership as conceived above. On completion of the EdD the student should be able to clearly articulate what contribution she/he has made to the furthering of knowledge and understanding of practice. It is therefore essential that from the initial coursework that students becoming increasingly clear about what contribution to the practice they are attempting to make and the research approach they intend to take.

The program is organized in three ‘Phases’ each one of which plays its part in the development of a completed thesis of the highest quality. In Phase One the courses center upon literature pertaining to educational leadership from broadly philosophical questions to more focused policy issues. In Phase Two the focus is on the enhancement of knowledge and methods related to researching the practice of educational leadership. In Phase Three the thesis research is carried out which focuses on topics that are meant to contribute to a more increased understanding of practice for the purpose of critique and improvement.

PHASE ONE This phase lasts for four semesters and is composed of four courses that require students to investigate key theories and principles relevant to the study of the practice of educational leadership.

PHASE TWO This phase is two semesters in duration and represents the time when students prepare for their research and thesis writing.

PHASE THREE During this phase students are registered in EDUC 899-10 Doctoral Thesis and normally lasts from three to four semesters.

During Phase 3 students will conduct research, write and revise their thesis drafts under the guidance of the Supervisory Committee for the purpose of producing a thesis that is ready for the Examination of the Doctoral Thesis. On successfully passing this examination students will work with their supervisory committee so as to get the thesis ready for acceptance by the SFU Library.

The EdD is earned by students who have demonstrated the following:

(a) the systematic acquisition and interpretation of a significant body of knowledge necessary for the advanced study of professional leadership practice, (b) a detailed understanding of applicable methods for research and advanced academic enquiry, (c) the ability to conceptualize, design and implement a research program for the generation of new knowledge to a quality to satisfy the highest standards of academic and professional review for the purpose of improving practice.

Practicing leaders and administrators play an integral role in the teaching and development of the program.

Over the past three ears the EdD has reached out to other parts of the province with cohorts operating in Kamloops, Victoria and Victoria as well as at the SFU campuses in Vancouver, Burnaby and Surrey. This expansion was based on a sustainable model of six cohorts (around 90 students) and has required the development of an enhanced administrative structure as well innovative delivery and supervision structures. There are now three strands in the program which are; K-

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 76 12 Senior Leadership, Post-Secondary and a new EdD cohort for French educational leaders, (Doctorat en Leadership éducationnel) in 2007.

The key for the future success of the EdD program is sustainability with issues concerning finance, academic quality control, field collaboration and supervision being among the most important.

(For the current report from the EdD program, see the self-study focus questions report.)

4. Surrey campus

Make consistent use of Surrey space Strengthen partnerships with agencies in Surrey

In Fall 2005 and Fall 2007, cohorts of MEd C&I students (Imaginative Education) were launched at the Surrey campus. In Fall 2006, the first cohort of master’s students in Educational Technology and Learning Design was started. The Master’s Educational Technology program will continue with an annual intake of approximately 15 students at the Surrey campus. In the Summer 2006 a cohort of EdD students at the Surrey campus was started. Discussions with Surrey district personnel regarding offering an MEd program that will take advantage of Surrey’s “leadership academy” is underway and active. The Counselling program offers some of the cohort courses at the Surrey location because faculty are located at that site. In addition, the Counselling Pscyhology program is currently negotiating with the Surrey School Board to combine services in a new formed Counselling Centre.

(The building of the new Counselling Centre or Clinic will commence shortly.)

5. Curriculum renewal and development French education Educational media i) French Education

The establishment of the Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs (OFFA) has put French programming on a sound financial and academic basis. A French C&I MEd (Victoria) cohort completed their program in Summer 2006. Another cohort began in Kelowna in September 2006. On-campus cohorts are admitted every second year in Fall 2005, 2007, etc. New intakes for the French programs will alternate biennially between the On Campus, Burnaby programs and the Off campus programs. ii) Educational Media A proposal for a new master’s and doctoral program in Educational Technology and Learning Design was approved by Senate in 2005. The previous master’s program “Education and Technology” was discontinued. The first intake of the new master’s program (16 students) occurred in September 2006 at the Surrey Campus and annual intakes will continue at the same site. Some financial support for students was available from special Surrey FTE funds. Applications for the new PhD program were first accepted for entry in 2007 and will continue with the goal to admit about 5 students each year. iii) Other developments in curriculum ~At the master’s level, we replaced the old C&I program entitled “Diversity” with a less restrictive program entitled “Foundations” which is consistent with the SFU calendar description of the C&I program (without specialization). This program allows full-time students to complete a master’s degree in less than two years, and should be attractive given current fee regulations.

~The previous master’s program “Understanding Second Language Education” was replaced with a new program “Teaching English as a Second/Foreign Language.”

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 77

~The master’s program “Reading and Learning Disabilities” was discontinued, but was reconstituted as a specialization (“Reading”) within the Educational Psychology program.

~Other specializations introduced into the Ed Psych program include “Development” and “Exceptionality.”

~At the doctoral level, a PhD in Mathematics Education replaced the previous Math Ed specialization in the Curriculum Theory and Implementation program.

~New LCL PHD program, new CTI Philosophy program (Please see the Coordinators’ reports on these two new programs: 5.1.2.5. and 5.1.2.7.)

Finances Sound financial plans for future operations are currently being deliberated.

The most acute financial concern in the previous three years has concerned funding for off-campus master’s program. Responsibility for this aspect has been transferred to EPII, and the problem now seems to have been resolved. The new infrastructure has worked well with respect to academic planning, programmatic oversight, and financial viability. Enrolments in off-campus master’s programs (MEd) have increased substantially and now approach levels consistent with programming prior to cutbacks instituted to deal with perceived budgetary problems. The EdD program has always been self-funding and continues to operate in the black.

On-campus funding has remained constant and adequate, within the limits we have set for the office’s contribution to graduate programming.

6. Use of research-oriented faculty for instruction

Student have increased access to tenure-track faculty for instruction and supervision.

Almost all on-campus courses continue to be taught by tenure-track faculty members. Off-campus courses make much more use of sessional lecturers, but those programs enroll students interested in “professional” degrees rather than “research” degrees. In 2006 a pilot EDUC 840 course was initiated, modeled on the 840 in place for students in the Educational Psychology program, for students in other PhD programs, particularly the CT&I. The course was designed to enhance students’ professional preparation for an academic career and to ease their way through the doctoral program. As part of the course, 11 tenure-track faculty members introduced students to their research and engaged them in a discussion of their work.

7. Graduate student support Avenues for more funding to recruit and support graduate students are being explored.

The GP office continues to provide financial support for graduate students to present at conferences. Over the past three years we have given $400 to approximately 40 students each year, including a high of 46 students in 2005/6.

In 2006/07, the formula to allocate Graduate Fellowships changed, and this resulted in a major increase for Education. In 2005/6 we were awarded 23 GFs; in 2006/7 that number more than doubled to 47. The value of each GF was stable at $6000. The new formula is driven in part by total enrolments in research-based graduate programs and in part by the 3-year completion rate (in a ratio 4 to 1 of PhD to master’s students). We received 21 GFs based on headcount, and 26 based on the number of students graduated over the past three years. This year, for the first time, we allocated a number of GFs for recruiting purposes. One GF was available to each master’s program area enrolling MA/MSc students in September 2006 (total of 6) and nine were available to PhD students (Arts Ed 2, CT&I 4, Ed Psych 2, Math Ed 1).

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 78 After a proposal drafted and presented by EGSA's treasurer (with assistance from other EGSA executive members) the Dean's office agreed in the spring of 2006 to fund the EGSA's annual Education With/Out Borders symposium for the next three years (2006, 2007, 2008) in the amount of $18,000 a year. $4,500 of each year's funding will go to the overhead and general running of the conference, and the rest will go to the creation of an on-line peer-reviewed proceedings from each year of the conference (paying for the services of a student editor, a student director, and a student web-developer for the proceedings). This funding was granted not only to make possible the setup and running of the online written product for the symposium, but also as an acknowledgment of the excellent work graduate students have done in creating and maintaining a high-quality academic forum.

9. Academic writing

Support for students struggling with academic writing is in place with FAL (the Foundations of Academic Literacy) This area of focus is moving away from past “Ad hoc arrangements” and current arrangements are more formal than “ad hoc” and gaining more structure with the implementation of FAL and GFAL.

Table 1. Growth in graduate student enrolments: (Please note that the figures given under ‘Spring 2007’ were projected numbers at the time this table was created.)

Program Spring 2000 Spring 2003 Spring 2006 Spring 2007 MA 87 103 83 87 MSc 12 13 9 9 MEd (on) *231 (on + off) 252 212 166 MEd (off) 187 115 140 MEd (international) 20 68 MEd (Educ Prac) 43 74 MEd (Surrey) 12 12 EdD 11 30 72 103 PhD 60 84 108 146 Total 401 669 674 805 No. of Tenure-track 42 48 51 60 Faculty

* Available database does not list off-campus enrolments separately.

The growth in enrolments can, in part, be attributed to several initiatives of the past few years. The first is the Master of Education (Educational Practice), approved in Spring/05. This program provides a means for selected students who completed a Graduate Diploma to undertake one further year of study at the master’s level to complete their MEd degree. This program is administered by Field Programs and more detail can be seen in their 3-year plan. Thirty-six students in two cohorts were enrolled in this program as of Spring/07.

The second is the Teaching English as a Second/Foreign Language program for students from China. This program was instituted through a collaboration of Graduate Programs and EPII. A cohort of 20 students from China enrolled in this program in Fall/05 and complete their program at the end of Fall/06.

The third factor is the growth in enrolments in the EdD program. We have enrolled students in cohorts at the following locations: Harbour Centre; Kamloops; Victoria; Prince George; and Surrey. Enrolments in off-campus MEd programs (recently re-named as “community-based programs”) have risen back to the steady state of 10 cohorts.

(Please note that we have no new cohorts being created, which means that these 10 cohorts are currently in varying states of completion.)

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 79 The slight decline in MA and MEd enrolments has been offset by the expanded enrolments in the PhD program. Increased numbers are evident in all PhD program areas.

2. The “on-line” MEd in Imaginative Education

Faculty involved in IERG have constructed a Master’s program that is offered through a combination of on-line and face-to-face courses. On-line courses are EDUC 823, EDUC 816, and EDUC 820 and are oriented toward issues of imaginative education; face-to-face courses which take place during two summers and include attendance at the annual International Conference on Imagination and Education. Versions of the on-line courses have been developed suitable for students in other master’s programs, both on- and off-campus.

Development procedures are being worked out with the Centre for Distance Education (CODE). We are breaking new ground in that graduate courses at the present time are not included in the mandate for CODE. John LaBrie, Dean of Continuing Studies and a member of the Faculty of Education, is exploring with senior administration options for developing and financing graduate courses. We are wrestling with issues of payment for course development, whether it is advisable to use tutor-markers at the graduate level, and the question of course credit for faculty who teach on-line courses. (Currently, the online MEd in Imaginative Education is being offered.)

Looking forward (The following is Tom O’Shea’s plan for the future, much of which has materialized or is continuing ot unfold.) Increase involvement of faculty in PhD and EdD programs The per faculty member annual average output at the master’s level is 0.44 graduates, and at the doctoral level is 0.11 graduates. These results show that our faculty members compare well with other departments, with an average load of about 4 research-oriented graduate students per faculty member. Our “average” faculty member produces one MA or MSc graduate every two years. Similarly, he/she produces one PhD graduate about every four years. We are second only to Biological Sciences in our PhD productivity. Note that this statistic excludes six EdD graduates over the three-year period. Had they been included, our productivity would have equaled that of Biological Sciences.

Analysis of current Faculty of Education supervisory loads In 2006, there were 47 faculty members for whom it would be reasonable that they have some supervision (e.g., excludes faculty who started in Sept/05). At that time, the following were in place: 56 PhD Senior Supervisors, 51 PhD pro-tem supervisors, 50 Master’s Senior Supervisors, 54 master’s pro-tem supervisors, and 28 EdD Senior Supervisors. Thus, a “typical” faculty member might have the following supervisory load: Senior for 2 doctoral students, pro-tem for another; Senior for 1 master’s student, pro-tem for another.

The actual distribution of responsibility is as follows:

Number of Students 0 1 | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 Supervised | | | | Number of 4 2 | 3 6 9 4 4 5 4 | 1 2 1 1 0 1 Faculty

From this table, one can determine that the average number of students supervised by a faculty member is 5. Arbitrarily setting limits (but fairly clear break points support these) of +/- 3, suggests a range of 2 to 8 students as reasonable under current conditions. Hence 6 faculty were under-utilized and 6 were contributing more than their share.

Improve graduate student support

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 80 Rationale: • Competition from other universities, in recruitment and on-going student support, will become more important as we seek to expand student numbers. • Current support levels, while considerably improved over recent years, do not match student needs. • Student representation at conferences and scholarly meetings enhances the visibility and reputation of our Faculty.

Means:  Create a comprehensive database related to current levels of funding support (e.g., scholarships, fellowships, teaching and research assistantships) and develop a coherent plan to support graduate, particularly PhD, students.  Develop MEd programs that allow students to complete coursework and examinations moreexpeditiously.  Build on the EdD model as a way to support graduate student progress through PhD programs.  Track institutional barriers and take advantage of research projects (e.g, Amundsen) to improve support.  Monitor graduation rates and enrolments to maximize allocation of graduate fellowships.  Seek opportunities for funding (e.g., through Surrey-based programs) to support graduate teaching and research assistantships.  Support and complement graduate student initiatives, such as Education With/Out Borders, the Epress, and the PhD Student handbook.  Continue to support writing for international students.  Explore the possibility of instituting a Graduate Foundations of Academic Literacy (GFAL) course for international students based on the experiences of Undergraduate Programs in their FAL program.  Continue graduate student representation (2 co-representatives) on GPC in order to sustain regular consultation with students as an essential source to maintain and improve the quality of programs.  Advocate for graduate student representation at educational forums (e.g., faculty symposia at he Wosk centre) so that students can participate at a high level in such panels.  Strive to identify areas where the transparency of the operation of graduate programs to graduate students could be increased.  Initiate discussion sessions with all graduate students in the faculty for the purpose of gathering feedback on their programs.

Contributions from Field Programs and International Education

See their respective reports to be found in other parts of the Faculty External Review Report. Varieties of Programmatic Experiences (The following are contributions from various Program Coordinators.)

Arts Education

Mission PhD in Arts Education This well-established doctoral program, currently with an enrolment of over thirty PhD students, is designed to prepare future college and university scholars for positions in various arts areas including music, visual art, drama, dance, and creative writing in education. The program is also suitable for school district and provincial arts specialists, arts school principals, heads of department, and curriculum developers. Our principal aim is to enable students to create their own forms of research, blending traditional and postmodern scholarship with artistic performance and inquiry.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 81 MEd and MA in Arts Education These two programs are well known in the arts community. The MEd is an all coursework option covering several arts curriculum areas, aesthetic education, creativity, and the social aspects of art. Applications are typically received from K-12 teachers, artists, high school heads of department, college instructors, adult educators, and community arts workers. The MA has a similar orientation, except, in addition, it requires an academic thesis and is considered suitable preparation for PhD study.

Strengths Graduate programs in arts education focus on a range of arts areas with the support of five faculty members and other associated faculty. Students have the opportunity to write theses from the perspective of aesthetics, curriculum, history, critical and social foundations, interdisciplinary work, and arts-based research, with inclusion of students’ own creative work. SFU arts education is unique in Canada and attracts students from across Canada and abroad. Challenges Perhaps the key issue facing the arts is the re-design of programs. This is needed to remain vital and current. This has already started at the doctoral level as colleagues are beginning to design new courses but more attention is needed at the master’s level to re-conceptualize program offerings. Another issue is being able to accommodate student numbers and the needs of thesis supervision. Prospects There seems to be a broad turn towards the arts, probably as a result of fatigue and alienation stemming from the scientific and techno-market emphasis in society and education, and the awareness that the arts have much to offer that is intrinsically and holistically valuable. We would like to explore new or better facility options for the arts as special discipline areas. Also, of interest would be the development of collaborative links with leading international arts institutions for academic, aesthetic and creative reasons. Curriculum (Theory) and Implementation/Instruction PhD Program:

Mission The PhD in Curriculum Theory and Implementation is designed for students who wish to develop a deep understanding of how theory and practice intersect in a range of educational settings, both historical and contemporary. It prepares students for research and teaching positions in colleges and universities, or for leadership roles in the areas of curriculum and instruction in school districts and other educational institutions. The program is a somewhat atypical blend of the European and North American traditions of doctoral study. It involves a small set of required courses, and relies significantly on an apprenticeship model in which the student works intensively with her or his supervisory committee. Students are encouraged to read widely, beyond their particular area of interest, and to explore a range of potential research topics with faculty members. Upon admission, students may apply for research and teaching assistantships and graduate fellowships, which can provide financial aid.

Program Strength -Strong history of graduands finding academic positions -The one-on-one mentorship, the “European” flair -Strong theoretical tradition -Range of professors involved, diversity of research that can be adequately supported

Challenges -increasing funding for students, lose some of the top students to other institutions that can offer more comprehensive packages -involving more of the faculty -Increasing number of students each faculty is responsible for, lessening the load particular faculty members carry. -Maintaining quality while increasing numbers

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 82 -number of courses required and whether that adequately prepares students

Prospects -Increase our numbers while maintaining the tradition of strength and solid preparation -Continue to support and produce top-quality researchers who are ready to get involved not only in academic positions but across the spectrum of educational research.

MA/MEd Program

Mission Our mission is to flexibly support graduate students who wish to pursue a critical examination of the foundational processes related to curriculum theory, and instructional practices. Core courses are offered in curriculum design, development, and evaluation that allow students to deepen their theoretical and applied understandings of curriculum issues and implementation. These core courses are augmented by electives related to the students’ specific interests and professional goals.

Program Strength The strength of the C&I Foundations MA/ MEd program is the flexibility it affords graduate students to meet individual academic interests and professional goals. In consultation with their supervisor, graduate students in the program are able to select from a wide range of electives across all program areas. Courses are offered in the late afternoon and evening each semester to meet the needs of students who work during the day.

Challenges While the flexibility of the program is an asset, it has been difficult to develop a sense of cohesion among the faculty who supervise students and teach in the C&I Foundations stream. This is becoming more apparent as other graduate programs are being developed and because faculty supervise and teach in more than one program area.

Prospects Building on, and maintaining the integrity, flexibility and diversity of the C&I: Foundations program is essential to the program’s success. To do this, it will be important to invite new faculty to teach courses and supervise students in this stream and to continue to engage those faculty members who are currently involved in the program.

Educational Technology and Learning Design

Our master’s programs (M.Ed. and M.A.) are designed to support students in becoming highly qualified and broad-minded Educational Technology specialists who can serve in schools, higher education, private enterprise, R& D labs or information learning environments (e.g., museums). The program takes a scholarly approach to designing learning technologies, planning for their use, and/or formally evaluating technology- based innovations for learning. The Ph.D. program builds on the master’s program and is designed primarily for those intending to pursue careers in R&D and /or teaching at the postsecondary level. Required coursework at this level incorporates both historical and contemporary educational theory, and advanced preparation in both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. The remainder of the doctoral program is composed of research seminars that follow an apprenticeship model of learning in which doctoral students work closely with faculty members on their research projects.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 83 Both programs are fairly new. Our master’s program is three years old and our doctoral program is two years old. From the beginning, we have attracted a large number of applications (relative to other programs in the Faculty) and we believe this has to do with not only the interesting array of courses we offer but a number of other program strengths. This includes the popular (in our Faculty) cohort model wherein students are able to proceed through the program with the same group of students, if they choose. We also admit, intentionally, students from a wide variety of educational and technical backgrounds (K-12 teachers, medical educators and other post-secondary instructors, instructional designers in business and industry and software developers); this mixture of backgrounds has proven to be exciting for both students and faculty. The program follows a blended delivery model that combines face-to-face and online activities in each course. Face-to-face meetings are held on evenings to accommodate employed students. Finally, all students in the program (master’s and doctoral students) and faculty come together once a semester for a Program Institute, a conference-type session that provides a forum for student presentations and outside speakers.

The faculty associated with our Program area meet once a month to sort through issues that have come up, to consider feedback from students and faculty and to discuss our respective and joint research endeavors. Recently, for example, we have initiated calendar changes to make it possible for students to take elective courses in faculties other than Education, we have worked through a revision of our undergraduate minor in Educational Technology and investigated ways to provide our graduate students with the software they need to accomplish the design projects required in each course. A current and probably ongoing challenge is integrating faculty and students at two campuses, the Burnaby campus and Surrey campus. One of our faculty members is at Surrey and all of our master’s courses are taught at Surrey while at the same time the doctoral courses are taught at Burnaby and the remaining faculty are at Burnaby. So we all teach on both campuses and we hold meetings on both campuses. It is challenging, but the advantages of this arrangement outweigh the disadvantages for the time being. A strength, but also a challenge, is our healthy and growing numbers of applicants. While we are pleased that the program is creating interest, we are not happy with the number of students we have to turn away. We have talked about the possibility of adding a second master’s cohort each year, but presently we do not have the teaching resources to do so.

Educational Psychology

Mission Our programs help students achieve three main objectives: develop a breadth and depth of knowledge of psychological theories and their applications in education, develop expertise in a specialization, and acquire an understanding of, and facility with, a variety of modes of inquiry and methodologies applicable to educational research. At the masters level, the program provides a general emphasis in educational psychology and specialization in the areas of development, exceptionality, and reading. The PhD program is designed for students interested in developing advanced knowledge of educational psychology.

Strengths Students in our small and dynamic programs work collegially and apprentice with professors in an environment where disciplinary knowledge and rigor are valued along side applied interests and the advance of educational practice. The high quality and success of our graduate program is evinced by the fact that two thirds of our doctoral graduates take up academic posts at universities or colleges. The faculty affiliated with the program pride themselves on their research productivity and grantsmanship, having garnered the largest per capita SSHRC funding of any programmatic grouping within the faculty. Though small in number, the eight faculty affiliated with the program are internationally renown, two of whom have, or currently, serve as presidents of Divisions of the American Psychological Association, and many serve on the boards of scholarly journals. In addition, several of the faculty are executive committee members of the Centre for Research on

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 84 Early Child Health and Education, an interdisciplinary Simon Fraser University research group that operates its own on-line journal Child Heath and Education. Challenges Current challenges include: attracting suitable applicants to our graduate programs, covering the range of expertise demanded by the interests of graduate students given a small faculty compliment, insuring the quality and consistency of courses taught by sessional instructors.

Aspirations Our hopes are to continue to insure the high quality of our programs and that our graduates continue to be well regarded and desired by academic institutions, that we are able to grow the number and quality of applications received for our graduate programs, and that we are able to expand the faculty compliment affiliated with the programs (particularly in the area of exceptionality). Languages, Cultures, and Literacies (to start September 2009)

Mission: This PhD program is designed for educators who wish to focus on the cultural and linguistic diversity that characterizes contemporary classrooms globally, who wish to participate in ongoing faculty research, and ultimately conduct their own research regarding how diversity might be recognized, strengthened and taken as a resource in public education. The program's instructors are committed to practices of equity and access. Courses offer a range of opportunities to question meanings and practices of social difference including those based on race, gender, language, class, and sexuality. The program pays close attention to dialogue across difference.

Strengths: In support of our focus on diversity, students will interact in every class session with three professors, each contributing their varied expertise. There is an accompanying research course in which students will have advanced training in research design, data collection and analysis.

Challenges: Don't know yet.

Prospects: 23 applications this year for a program not widely advertised. Much interest internationally. We think this program will certainly grow.

Mathematics Education PhD in Mathematics education

Mathematics education as a field of study has developed rapidly in the last 30 years. There is a demand for qualified Canadian mathematics educators at the University level. This demand will intensify with the development of University Colleges and other degree-granting institutions. Across the continent there is a severe shortage of qualified candidates to fill Faculty positions in mathematics education.

Our PhD program in Mathematics Education is designed to attract educators preparing for a career as researchers in an academic setting or leaders in a professional setting. The program provides students with advanced knowledge of historical developments in mathematical thinking and learning and of current theories and methodologies. It provides a venue for developing and carrying out an independent research study. Through the program the students become acquainted with current trends in the field and with the national and international research communities.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 85 The distinguishable feature of our program is that it is independently focused on Mathematics Education and not embedded as an optional route within Curriculum and Instruction or Educational Psychology programs, as is the case in the majority of Canadian Universities. As such, 4 out of 5 courses required for the program attend specifically to issues of Mathematics Education. The fifth course provides the candidates with an opportunity to broaden their horizons on other educational issues.

Our biggest challenge is in securing funding for our students that will assist in attracting qualified candidates to sustain the program. The issue of support for graduate students is more crucial in our program than in other programs. This is because in many Universities Mathematics Education graduate degrees are situated within the Departments of Mathematics (rather than Education), and Departments of Mathematics are able to commit to funding graduate students as Teaching Assistants for the duration of their program. As such, many prospective applicants weigh guaranteed funding higher than the quality of the program and choose to pursue their degrees elsewhere.

Our goal is to secure funding for support of graduate students (via endowment or advancement office), sustain steady enrolment of 6-8 students/year, and, eventually, see our graduates occupying key research and leadership positions in Mathematics Education in Canada and beyond.

Master’s in Secondary Mathematics Education

Mission: Our graduate program is designed to help teachers develop insights into the nature of mathematics and its place in the school curriculum. Teachers will become familiar with research on how secondary students learn mathematics, and with current ideas on how best to teach the subject. The program stresses the human aspects of mathematics. We emphasize the role of mathematics in society and the natural development of mathematics as a growing, changing, entity. Developments in the school mathematics curriculum, and in pedagogy, will be related to historical, cultural, and psychological forces operating within society. The goal is to produce teachers who have a broad understanding of mathematics and mathematics education, and who will be better qualified to deal with rapid curriculum change in the next several decades.

Strengths: The Faculty of Education and the Department of Mathematics have collaborated to develop six courses specifically for secondary mathematics teachers – three courses in the Faculty of Education (Educ 844 – Research Basis Of Mathematics Education, Educ 846 – Foundations of Mathematics Education, Educ 847 – Teaching and Learning Mathematics) and three courses in the department of mathematics (Math 603 – Foundations of Mathematics, Math 604 – Geometry, Math 605 – Mathematics in Context). These courses are taught and co-taught by faculty members in both academic units. Graduates of this program have for the last 10 years occupied significant positions of influence within the High School Mathematics Education landscape in this province. As such, this program is having far reaching and powerful impact on mathematics education in BC.

Challenges: The biggest challenge at this time come from an overabundance of desirable courses. Educ 845 – Learning Mathematics with Computers is very popular with these students, as is work in Educ 811 – Fieldwork I. Both of these courses could easily become regular requirements of the program, but their inclusion would make the program unwieldy in terms of credit size and, as such, may potentially harm its marketability.

Aspirations: Our hopes are to continue refining the program in the areas mentioned above - curriculum, course composition, collaborations, and influence. Philosophy of Education

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 86 Mission Philosophy is a radical practice. It is a way of being rooted in calling out and responding to the world. This PhD program with an emphasis on Philosophy of Education is hence both a call and a response to those who wish to engage in a radical approach to understanding and transforming education. This is a new program that began in the fall of 2007. It has currently 11 people enrolled in it. In terms of the subject matter of teaching and research, the program encompasses three overlapping dimensions: Ecology, Culture, and Consciousness. It is designed to attract educators from diverse professional fields, communities, and teaching and leadership positions who are interested in studying philosophical texts and contexts pertaining to educational studies. And it will prepare students to apply knowledge, sensibility, skills and dispositions of philosophical inquiry, analysis, and interpretation to their research topics and to their educational practices. It is designed to prepare people for philosophically astute and responsive engagement with any educative dimension of work and personal life. It is the hope of the faculty members and students alike in our program that what we are doing in our studies, research, and academic activities acts as avantgarde in social change.

Strengths At the heart of this program is the cohort model of community building that horizontally and vertically brings together faculty members and students to facilitate continuity and consolidation of learning conversations and research activities. The four core faculty members (along with additional adjunct members) in this program work together, closely and collaboratively, to support students throughout the entire journey of their program, from initial course work to completion of dissertation. Students are encouraged to approach their research from wide perspectives including ecological, critical, social, aesthetic, ethical, and interdisciplinary. Our program is committed to growing only within its ability to provide quality guidance and mentorship to the students it accepts.

Challenges Like many other programs, we face the challenge of sustaining growth without compromising the quality of the mentorship provided.

Master of Education Degree, Teaching English as a Second/Foreign Language (TESL/TEFL)

Mission: This Cohort Master's of Education program is designed to attract teachers working with English as an additional language learners in public schools, as well as teachers of English as an additional language to adults. The program will provide students with advanced knowledge of theoretical, research and practical issues in teaching English language learners.

Strength: Focus on changing practice through consideration of educational theory and research.

Challenges: We don't get many applicants from the Lower Mainland, most of our students are international. These international students need support of various kinds that is difficult for instructors to provide, but there is no special institutional support for them.

Prospects: We know that there will continue to be a demand for English teacher education internationally, but we would also like to attract more local students.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 87 Educational Leadership

Educational Doctorate Program (Please see the Focus Question Report “Set Three.”)

Masters Programs

History

Prior to the present Educational Leadership Program (ELP) it was known as the Administrative Leadership Program (ALP) and it was based at the Burnaby campus as well as sites outside the Lower Mainland e.g. Kamloops, Cranbrook, Prince George. The degrees offered were either academic MA degrees consisting of coursework and a thesis or professional MEd degrees with course work and a practice based project. These were all funded on the Faculty of Education base budget.

In 1992 a new program was developed for off-campus MEd’s. Known initially as a Designated Program MEd, it consisted of course work, 35 credit units taken over six semesters, followed by a comprehensive exam. It had a cohort group format with a focused content area. The program was designed to operate on a cost recovery basis, which given the financial climate of the university at the time was the only basis upon which this graduate program could be mounted. The format and funding arrangements that were developed at that time still form the basis of most of the present ELP programs.

This initiative was a response on the part of the faculty to several key initiatives outlined in the SFU planning agenda laid out in Challenge 2001: The President’s Strategic Plan, but was also influenced by the Commission of Inquiry on Canadian University Education (Stuart Smith, 1991), which criticized universities for focusing on research at the expense of instruction and the needs of students and the community.

The first of these programs was begun in the fall of 1992 as a result of negotiations with University College of the Cariboo (UCC) in Kamloops. It was completed in 1994 with nineteen students graduating. From 1992 to the present day this program has been offered in many BC communities, including Nanaimo, Kelowna, Kamloops, Vernon, Prince George, Abbotsford, Nelson, Sunshine Coast, Surrey and Vancouver.

Subsequently the cohort based, coursework and comprehensive examination format was also adopted for on- campus leadership MEd and the project based MEd was restricted to use with students on individual programs. Thus today the MA remains as the academic program and the MEd the professional program.

In January 2007 the administration of the off-campus MEd was moved to the SFU Surrey campus and was incorporated into what was designated as part of the Community-based MEd programs. These programs also include Curriculum and Instruction MEd’s and are all financed on a premium fee formula. The MA remains based at the SFU Burnaby campus.

Mission The masters programs in educational leadership, leading to an MEd or MA degree, provide a rigorous program of study and research designed to meet the needs of current and prospective leaders in the K-12 public and private schools, post-secondary institutions, and other education-related organizations. A broad range of courses of study provide for the systematic acquisition and interpretation of a wide range of scholarly literature pertinent to study in the following areas: leadership studies; ethics; educational governance; educational practice, reform and program delivery; policy analysis, development and implementation; organizational theory, change, and renewal; administrative processes and systems; leadership contexts –legal frameworks, diversity, labour relations, and political systems; critical understanding and application of methodologies applicable to research.

Degrees The MEd is a professional degree signifying advanced knowledge about and advanced training in educational practice. Minimal requirements for MEd course work/comprehensive exam programs is the completion of 35 credit hours in required and elective courses, plus a final comprehensive examination (five credit hours).

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 88 The MA is a research degree program signifying advanced knowledge in a field of specialization and advanced competence in conducting significant and original research in education.

Strengths Courses of study are both academically rigorous and field responsive, and delivered in ways that enable individual and group (e.g. cohort) study complemented by extended periods of dialogue with professors, colleagues and distinguished academic visitors and practitioners. With respect to current capacity, there are strong, highly qualified, and recognized (provincially, nationally, and internationally) instructional resources affiliated with the programs of study - tenure track faculty, limited term lecturers, adjunct professors, sessional instructors and mentors – that enable and encourage in depth investigations of up to date research, state of the art practices and grounded theory. The recently approved Centre for the Study of Educational Leadership and Policy (CSELP) will be actively connected to faculty and student research and the programs of study. The Centre primarily focuses on research that supports the advancement of K-12 and post secondary education in BC. The mission of CSELP is to use a variety of academic and communicative resources – scholarly publications, issue analysis, best practices, practitioner/academic interchange and inter-institution collaboration - to expand the public policy knowledge base and its role in developing leadership capacity in BC.

The masters programs in educational leadership currently benefit from established working partnerships with the British Columbia School Superintendents Association (e.g. partnership established to deliver the Association’s online Dimensions of Practice Program), the BC Principals’ and Vice Principals Association (e.g. conversations directed at mapping the Leadership Standards for Principals and Vice Principals in BC into core courses) and the Surrey School District (Cohort Programs). The programs will be enriched by active efforts to establish potential and developing associations, with other SFU Centres and Institutes - Imaginative Education, Teacher Education, Study of Law and Society, and LIDC.

Challenges and Aspirations The immediate challenge facing the Educational Leadership Program (ELP) is that of engaging and committing instructional, space, financial and supervision/mentoring capacity and resources to mount programs in educational leadership that will be of sufficient size, high academic standards, relevance and accessibility to the Province’s stated and pressing need for school and leaders. The Faculty of Education, through its Educational Leadership Program will need to call upon the best of its differentiated staffing traditions, insistence on program quality, internal collaborations and history of innovative organizational and teaching practices to take a leadership role in addressing this important public policy issue. Staff associated with current programs in educational leadership are taking an active role in discussions with other universities and both the British Columbia Ministries of Advanced Education and Education to address bringing such programs to a reality in a timely manner. Counselling Psychology Program

Mission Statement The SFU Counselling Psychology program is committed to excellence in the development and induction of graduate students into the counselling profession. Students learn about current theoretical and practical applications of counselling in school and community agencies in small, supportive student groups that encourage dialogue and professional community development. Students graduating from the program are expected to be knowledgeable, innovative, and professional with a broad understanding of, and ethical practice in, counselling modalities for working with client populations, including adults, adolescents, and children, as well as specialized training in family, group, and career counselling.

Program Strengths The Counselling Psychology program is currently in the process obtaining Canadian Counselling Association (CCA) program accreditation. This means that we will be adding to our current program in order to meet national Canadian standards set-out for the training of graduate level counselors as outlined by CCA: (a) to ensure high standards of professional training for counsellor, and (b) to assist counsellor education programs

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 89 to assess and improve their programs. We have undergone a self-study and are continuing to review, develop, and implement goals and procedures in order to ensure that we will be able to meet the CCA accreditation standards. In order to meet these standards, we have already developed and began teaching new graduate-level counselling courses as part of the curriculum including EDUC 872 Ethics in Counselling Psychology and EDUC 799 Supervised Clinical Training.

Currently in progress is the joint collaboration between SFU’s Counselling Psychology Program and the Surrey School District in the development of the new Surrey Counselling and Education Centre. We are in the process of finalizing the details of a Memorandum of Understanding and expect it to be approved shortly. Then the Surrey School District will commence building the counselling centre, which will be housed at Matheson Secondary School. The Faculty of Education Surrey Counselling and Education Centre will:

1. Provide accessible, low cost (fee for service) counselling services (individual, group, and couples/family), with a particular priority on providing services to children and families in the surrounding area. 2. Provide supervised training opportunities for counselling psychology graduate students (school and community streams). 3. Facilitate research related to counselling and counsellor education. 4. Increase and support other areas of programming in the Surrey School District and the Faculty of Education (e.g., professional development of district school counsellors, parent education, and parent support groups).

The Counselling Psychology Program is the most popular of the graduate programs in the Faculty of Education at SFU. We receive approximately 150 applications per year for 12 – 20 spots. Given the popularity of our program and the lack of faculty resources, we have had to limit the intake of M.A. students due to supervisory capacity.

Program Challenges The program has been under considerable stress over the two years. There had been a stable core of three long-term faculty members (Paterson, Thompson, & Horvath) when approval was received to hire a fourth faculty member to assist in the development of the counselling program in Surrey (Keats). The following year, one of the four faculty members retired (Horvath), and a new faculty appointment was made (Popadiuk). Paterson eventually moved into administration, while Thompson was unexpectedly on sick-leave for a year, which evolved into a second year of leave without pay. With these changes, two new tenure-track faculty members (Keats and Popadiuk) were left to co-coordinate the program. Two positions (Paterson and Thompson) were unfilled, although there was approval to hire a limited-term lecturer, which resulted in a failed search. In the second round of interviews, we successfully hired an LTL (Shewchuk) who started January 2008. Not only have Keats and Popadiuk been responsible for maintaining the program, but they have also been building the program in order to achieve CCA accreditation standards and developing the new Surrey Counselling and Education Centre as described above. A program that is supposed to have four full-time tenure-track or tenured faculty members has been effectively run by two new faculty-members for approximately the last 1.5 years. This has been a tremendous challenge to the co-coordinators of the program, and has placed a considerable burden on their ability to carry out their writing and research in a consistent manner.

Hopes for the Future One of the most important goals for the future is to have a full complement of tenure-track faculty members (4) to run the program and assist in the continued development of our new initiatives. Secondly, we look forward to successfully receiving full Canadian Counselling Association accreditation in the near future. Thirdly, the opening of the new Surrey Counselling and Education Centre in Surrey will mark an incredible success. Finally, we anticipate conducting more research with each other in the counselling program, and supporting each other’s professional growth.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 90 A questionnaire was used in order to seek feedback from a diverse range of graduate students. An original set of questionnaires was constructed, feedback was sought from members of the EGSA executive and students representatives on the GPC and the questionnaire was re-drafted. The final version contained 26 questions, 5.1 Student Voices

Graduate Student Questionnaire the majority of which were open ended, and addressed issues related to course of studies, pedagogy, faculty, funding, roles, relations, events, complaints, concerns, supports, and hindrances. Students were assured that they would not be required to provide their names or identifying information to complete the questionnaire and that we would do our utmost to ensure anonymity and confidentiality.

The questionnaire was available in an online format to ensure easy access for off campus students. An email inviting participation was sent to on-campus and off-campus graduate students via faculty email-lists. Paper copies were also distributed in graduate students mailboxes. Despite numerous attempts to encourage participation, the return rate was low.

Of the 45 students who completed the questionnaire, 12 were from the Curriculum, Theory and Implementation PhD program, 11 were from the Doctor of Education in Education Leadership (EdD) program, four were from the Arts Education Program (3 PhD, one unknown), four were from the Philosophy of Education (PhD) program, three were from the Educational Psychology program (2 PhD students, one unknown), three were from the Educational Technology & Learning Design (one MA, 2 unknown), two were from the Masters of Education program, two were PhD students (program unknown), and one student was from each of the following programs: Curriculum and Instruction: Foundations (MA), Counselling Psychology (MA), inclusion and diversity, and the Individual program. Masters students in all program areas were greatly underrepresented or not represented at all. The response rate from doctoral students was approximately 10- 30% depending on the program. All doctoral programs were represented except for the Mathematics Education PhD program.

Course of Studies Approximately half of the students reported that, at least for the most part, their course of studies met or exceeded their expectations. These students described their course of studies as “relevant,” “useful,” “interesting,” “helpful,” “thought-provoking,” “intensely-simulating” and “life-transforming”. Their programs offered them access to “great professors” and a “good foundation” in their area of study. “The courses were excellent: of high caliber and considerable academic rigor. The faculty and instructors were attentive to the needs of the students and honoured the spirit of doctoral level study.”

While some students appreciated the curriculum that their programs offered, others thought that there was too much breadth and/or not enough depth. Some found it difficult to process the amount of material offered in each course and several suggested longer courses in order to facilitate more in-depth investigations.

One of the most common complaints was in regards to the courses offerings. There were requests for more courses in arts education, EdD, counseling psychology, education and technology (apparently there are no courses at PhD level) and curriculum. Specific concerns were voiced across disciplines about a lack of research methods courses and courses on gender, race/multiculturalism, identity and/or power. Some students stated that they sought courses outside their program or at another university to supplement their degrees. Others wished that they had more information about relevant courses offered through other faculties or other universities.

Another common concern was a lack of consistency across different offerings of the same course, or courses that suffered from “content drift” and were not consistent with the course descriptions. Several students reported that professors adapted the curriculum of courses to focus on their own specific research interests. As one Arts Education student noted, these inconsistencies can have serious consequences.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 91 “EDUC 945 was notable as a course in which the content was very inadequate, with the actual content of course texts etc being only obliquely and vaguely related to art. Its focus appeared designed to accommodate instructor comfort and interests, not student needs. This meant that my area, arts education, had no significant direct coursework in arts at all, to such a degree that I would be embarrassed if future academic employers knew how meager my learning in that particular realm of my PhD studies was.” Lack of coordination across courses and within programs left students feeling like they had “gaps” in their knowledge and lacked continuity in their studies. “It would help to have more coordination across the courses so that students acquire the same core skills and knowledge within a program, and to examine how a course links with another (e.g. builds on, doesn't repeat parts, etc.)”

It was also reported that a disconnect between programs created a barrier for the advancement of scholarship and research, and made it difficult for students to connect with students in other programs who have the same research interests and recruit supervisors and committee members. “Faculty has become increasingly fragmented between and within programs. We have many programs, but it seems like very specific areas of research, courses and mentorship available to students. Faculty members generally pursue individual research areas and don't really collaborate with each other.”

Concerns specific to EdD students were regarding the perception of their program and the quality given the high cost of tuition and the limited access to services and benefits in comparison to other FOE gradate students. “The EdD program needs to be seen by the university as an intellectually important asset, as well as a vital service to the training needs of the public sector in our community. Too much energy is needed to be spent on issues of validity and legitimacy. Lets move on. Further, EdD students need parity in policy and in standing in the university as other doctoral programs. It feels almost as if there is second class status, and that is not reasonable.”

Some of the concerns that were specific to the MEd International students were that the program was terminal and they could not continue with a PhD or switch to the MA program, the program focused too much on teaching ESL and did not address the diverse interests of the group or allow for learning about education in the Canadian context. Further several students reported that it would have been useful if their methods course had come earlier in the program.

Concerns voiced specifically by some of the students in the CT&I PhD program were that their course of studies was not challenging enough, the quality of the students in their program was substandard, and that they did not have enough access to senior professors. “Two of my core courses … were taught by junior faculty members within their first year or so at SFU. I expected that in the PhD program I would have more access to and instruction from experienced professors.”

Pedagogy

"Simon Fraser University's Faculty of Education is committed to scholarly excellence, leading-edge pedagogy, innovative curriculum, engagement with teachers, differentiated staffing, and a participatory democratic culture. A global leader in educational research and a pathfinder in Canada's teacher education, the Faculty of Education is committed to ethical practice, equity, social justice and diversity." FOE MISSION

The most common types of methods described by students included discussions, lectures, group work, student presentations and final papers. Unique methods reported by students included the production of a video game, collaborating with graduate student in another country via online and video conferencing, and physical experiences (often outdoors) that manifested the ideas in the readings. It was noted by several students that the instructional methods used could be a lot more creative and innovative, that the forms of pedagogy most often considered "best practice” were rarely used, and that professors should make more effort to implement the methods that they advocate in their teaching. This was viewed as particularly importance since we are a Faculty of Education.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 92 Some students reported experiencing a variety of methods, which they said provided a “good balance” between collaboration and individual work, structure and flexible activities, and student-centred and teacher- centred pedagogies. “Teaching styles were diverse. This added to the strength of the program...there was a wide range of pedagogies being implemented.” The exposure to diverse pedagogical practices was beneficial for students as learners and also served as a model for students’ own instructional practice.

Some students described professors as “facilitators”, giving students freedom to explore topics of interest, encouraging students to make connections between their personal experiences and the curriculum, and/or teaching from a student-centred or constructivist perspective. Others reported the over use of didactic methods such as incessant lecturing or reading from textbooks. As one student noted, “death by powerpoint. Need I say more?”

For some students, class discussions were beneficial, however others voiced concerns regarding the use of this method if there were too many students in the class, a significant numbers of students are unable to participate at the level required, the instructor was unwilling to provide the guidance required, the conversation was “hijacked” by some students, or all students did not feel entitled to participate. “I actually dropped out because I felt the course was poorly managed in terms of leveraging discussion and the gender balance of the course. It was not a safe or pleasant environment to engage in conversation, people were confrontational, dominant and aggressive and the instructor did nothing about it.”

There were also concerns regarding the overuse of student presentations. Some students stated that they preferred to hear more from professors, and wished that professors would make more comments regarding students’ contributions.

Some students reported that teaching was not as high a priority for their professors as their research and others felt that professors needed more support developing appropriate teaching methods. “There needs to be teaching methods training offered to profs so they can make their material more accessible to students. They need to know how to give guided questions so that readings are done with a purpose and students have an idea what to read for. They need strategies to get them to stop sitting still in chairs and talking for 5 hours on end.”

Large class sizes and five hours classes were difficult for students at the best of times for some students and the use of more online technologies was recommend to reduce class time and commutes to campus.

Faculty Approximately 61% of the students reported that faculty members met or exceeded their expectations (at least for the most part). Professors were described as “accessible”, “knowledgeable”, “challenging”, “helpful”, “incredible”, “excellent”, “collaborative”, “thoughtful”, “responsive”, “engaging”, “well informed”, “respectful”, “thought provoking”, “professional”, “concerned”, “passionate” “committed” “phenomenal,” “impressive”, “stimulating,” “available,” “supportive,” and “encouraging.”

Others reported mixed experiences or described professors who were unavailable, were inflexible, did not provide feedback, did not put enough effort or thought into their teaching, or were not open to perspectives other than their own. “From my perspective many of the faculty either do not support or understand the aims of this program and therefore their delivery was "mixed" at best (books not relevant, focus on US approaches to the exclusion of Canadian ones, not rigorous enough for this level, marking papers while listening to presentation and subsequently getting them mixed up is not appropriate)”

“He has a hierarchical idea that his way is better than anyone else and he does not honor ''otherness''... i.e. women or international students.”

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 93 One EdD student voiced a concern regarding the credentials of his/her professors. “One of the problems with an EdD is that the instructors really ought to be good administrators. That's what an EdD really is, as opposed to a PhD. Out of the five (one of our four courses was team taught) instructors I had, I would say that only one was a good HIGHER EDUCATION administrator” Funding "In 2005/6, the average annual income provided by the university through a combination of employment and fellowships/scholarships for doctoral students in Education was approximately $13,000. In 2005/6, annual financial support for MA/MSc master’s students amounted to $250,000, an average of approximately $2000 per student." FOE Graduate Programs Website

Approximately 35% of respondents reported having received at least one graduate fellowship or research stipend (valued at over $6000) or a SSHRC. Additionally 5% (2 students) reported receiving conference funding ($400 per conference). Several students stated that they were fully-funded through SFU. Often this involved “patching together” a combination of teaching and research jobs, as well as scholarships on an ongoing basis. However for some students, the funding was inadequate. “received fellowship (which helps a little) but comparing to other university like UoT which offers funding package, SFU is far behind in that regard.”

Approximately 20% of the participants stated that they did not apply for funding because they did not need it - they were employed full-time, had set aside money to finance their degree, or received funding through other sources. Two of these people commented that they did not apply because they did not want to take this funding away from those who might need it more than they did.

Many of the participants who completed the study (27%) reported that did not qualify for most funding because they were EdD students, worked full time and could not take a leave, had been in the program more than 15 semesters, had not completed all the departmental/university requirements, or were international students. This was concerning not only from a financial perspective but also because receiving awards based on merit helps to build one's CV.

Several other students stated that they did not apply for scholarships because they felt like their credentials were inadequate. Additionally a few students reported that they did not apply because the process was not well advertised or that they were not aware that they were eligible to apply for awards.

Many EdD students felt that the allocation of scholarships was particularly unfair considering they pay premium tuition fees, yet are not able to apply for most funding. “I didn't have many expectations going into the program except that I would be afforded equal opportunity and access to the benefits and services of all graduate students. I was surprised to find out however that this is not the case when it comes to applying for scholarships, grants, and bursaries.”

Other students also reported that the allocation of funding was not equitable. One person felt that “faculty- track students” were favoured for awards and another suggested that the allocation of scholarships was “random.” Several students also reported that they knew of people who received scholarships who were not financially needy. For example, one participant claimed, “I knew/know of students who received significant funding through SSHRC fellowships, awards, RA and sessional instructor opportunities that exceed what many of the students who work full-time make annually. Also it's frustrating to learn that in some cases the funding went into stock investments, savings for homes, etc. : ( ”

Since the average PhD student received $13000 of funding in 2005/2006, it seems unlikely that many, if any, graduate students received more funding from the university than the salary of working professionals. It would be useful to examine the range and the mode of graduate funding in order to assess the validity of this concern.

Events

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 94 Students listed a range of faculty events that they had attended including guest speakers, workshops, socials, colloquia, conferences, faculty dinners, summer institutes, pub nights, videoconferences, cohort meetings and weekends, salons, and “meet n greets.” Most students spoke highly of the events that they attended although some were reported to be less beneficial than others. These events provided opportunities for students to “learn new ideas,” network with (busy) faculty and other students, and find out “what others are doing and how they are doing it.” These events also helped to develop a sense of community.

Work and family obligations prevented many students from attending faculty events. One EdD students commented, “I have not had an opportunity to attend faculty events as I am employed full time and go to school full time. Again, if external and internal funding were available for EdD students it would allow us to possibly work part- time or take a leave and become more engaged with the SFU community.”

Several off campus students requested that Faculty events should be more accessible for distance students, possibly through the use of computer technologies, and one student suggested that “it would be nice to have some of those workshops etc. to be offered where the distance cohorts reside.”

Roles and Resources Approximately 62% of the participants have worked as a Teaching Assistant, Tutor Marker, Sessional Instructor, or Course Supervisor. The majority of these students have taught multiple times. Approximately 30% of the participants had done research work with/for an FOE professor. Although few participants commented on their experiences as RAs, those who did reported that the experience was invaluable. Approximately 24% of participants have published. Only three of the nine students who were published explicitly reported that they published with a FOE member. Approximately 50% of the participants reported that they had presented at a conference and the majority of these students had presented with FOE professors. Five students reported being paid through the FOE for non-research or non-teaching work: conference organization, translation, and editing. It should be noted however that these statistics were calculated based on the number of students who replied to the question. It is possible that students who did not have these experiences left the question blank rather than responding in the negative. If this is the case, the statistics may overestimate the percentage of students who have had these experiences.

In general there seemed to be some misinformation and a lack of information about how to go about getting research and teaching experience and how to publish and present at conferences. Some stated that they did not know that these opportunities were available and others reported that they needed more information. In regards to the question about teaching, one Ed D student commented, “It would be great if EdD students were able to be TAs in courses in some way. I received no teaching experience because I was an "administrator" and in the administrator stream. …. I am now facing going to another university to get the teaching courses/experience I need.” All students are eligible to apply for teaching positions and they are not allocated based on financial need. Many positions are available in the evenings or via distance education so it is not known why this student felt that these experiences were not available to EdD students.

The Education Graduate Students’ Association (EGSA) provided students with opportunities to present or publish their ideas through their annual conference, Education With Out Boarders (EWOB) and journal, SFU Educational Review. For some students this was the only entry point for them to learn about these activities. One student commented, “There is somewhat of a disconnect and inconsistency around mentoring PHD students on basics such as research, publishing, conference presentations. Several of my colleagues had never presented at a conference until EWOB came along. There is a general vague line about publishing, but no suggestions, hints or ideas about where one can publish were ever made. You are on your own - sink or swim.”

There were concerns regarding the general lack of explicit knowledge available for students in regards to resources, processes and systems. This was particularly a concern for off-campus students and international students.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 95 “Unless you spend a lot of time hanging around the school with classmates and professors, you have no way of knowing how things work within the system.” While some students identified the EGSA a great resource in terms of advocacy, networking, conference funding, socializing and more, others had not utilized the EGSA resources or attended EGSA events. Some reported that they were unable to benefit form the work of the EGSA because they were off-campus students. Relations "Our faculty prides itself on a close relationship between faculty and students, both within courses and as part of the supervisory process." FOE Graduate Programs Website

63% of participants reported that faculty members guide them through the program, 13% reported that faculty members follow them through the program, 4% reported that faculty members lead them through the program, and 20% reported that faculty members are hard to find.

For most students (approximately 70%) finding a supervisor was easy, or at least relatively easy. They continued on with their pro-tem, had assistance from protems, faculty members, or program coordinators, or other third parties, or located one by connecting with a faculty member during their coursework or at community events. Some student reported that faculty members asked them. For example, one student stated, “No, we found each other and almost simultaneously he told me he would love to be involved, in any capacity, with me and my work and I asked him if he was interested. He was the prof in one of my master's courses and we got to know each other then, so I was more than familiar with his areas of interest and research and what kind of a person he is, realizing we would be a good "fit".

The most common reasons that students reported difficulty was obtaining a new supervisor after a change in the status of the student or the professor (“changed programs...poof”), or because there was no one in the faculty who was a suitable match given their area of study. One concerning response came from a student who was unsatisfied with the options for supervisors available in her area. “Very difficult. My field inevitably has only a certain number of instructors, and I have become so pessimistic about these particular instructors' academic rigor and work ethic that I have experienced distress at the prospect of having to work with them. (It seems to me that perhaps there has been a tendency for "like to hire like" in the past.) I have stalled in my studies for lack of a supervisor.”

One student reported that the process was difficult because he/she had no knowledge of how to do so and another reported that he/she had no guidance. Several students commented that while they had no trouble finding a supervisor, their supervisors were inaccessible due to extended leaves, sabbaticals, or conference related travel. “My supervisor took an extended leave the month I started and I was not given a replacement until 10 months afterwards. I wanted a supervisor to know my plan towards graduation, help me choose my courses, etc. I had no help with either.”

65% of the sample reported that (at least from the most part) their relationships with faculty have been constructive and supportive of their success. “Yes, they have provided me with opportunities to explore areas of interest, which has given me a nuanced and interconnected understanding of areas that I work in. Whenever I have run into obstacles, I have been supported, and encouraged in various ways.”

For others the support was inconsistent throughout time and across different faculty members. “A relationship does not really exist at this point. I think it could have happened but it seems that with off site programs - out of sight - out of mind.”

Some students wanted more support negotiating their relationship with their supervisors. “I would also greatly appreciate a handbook on how to deal with the concerns I encounter with my supervisory committee.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 96 Concerns and Complaints 41% of respondents (18 people) had raised a complaint or concern about program, course, or faculty related issues. More than half of these people stated that did not know the processes for addressing such issues. Some students were guided by a supervisor, director, or staff member, some took the issue to the GPC, EGSA, or the Director of Graduate Programs, and others confronted a professor directly or reported the concern on a course evaluation. 50% of the people who made a complaint stated that they were not comfortable raising the concern. 44% of those who reported a complaint felt that their concerns were responded to fairly. Others reported that their concerns were not addressed fairly, not addressed at all, cannot be addressed, or they do not know if there concerns have been addressed.

What has been the greatest help? Students listed many different factors that enable their graduate studies; however most students (73%) referred to professors, supervisors or committee members who were knowledgeable, helpful, caring, flexible, nice, encouraging, and/or supportive. For example, one student stated that “meeting professors who take an interest in me and my research (and) having instructors who care deeply about their teaching,” was the greatest help and support for her graduate studies.

Other members of the SFU community who were also mentioned as supports including the staff in the Graduate Programs office, Alana Nordstrand, librarians, research groups, and peers. Family members were also listed as important supports.

Opportunities for funding, for teaching and research experience, for mentorship, to study from a distance, to attend conferences, to network at with scholars from other universities, and for funds for graduate students to organize events were identified as important factors.

The cohort model, course web sites, books, specific courses (Education 840 and research courses), orientations (graduate student; sessional instructor), and workshops (LIDC) were tools that participants identified as being particularly helpful.

Hindrances One of the main hindrances reported by the students who completed the questionnaire (approximately 20%), was related to finances: having to work fulltime while trying to study, the high cost of tuition, lack of financial support from the university, and struggling to patch together enough funding each semester. One EdD student stated, “The program is VERY EXPENSIVE and it would certainly help if there was some way to decrease the tuition. Many students paid the whole amount themselves - which can be a great barrier to participating and completing the program.”

Another commonly reported hindrance (19%) was lack of access to faculty members, lack of prompt feedback from supervisors, and lack of direction from committees. Many students noted that professors would like to offer more support but it is not possible given their intense workloads. “I think the FOE needs to look seriously at how busy and over-committed some of their faculty are. This impedes student-supervisor meetings and opportunities for writing, talking, researching together.”

Other hindrances that were mentioned by more than one student included lack of support and/or concern for those with language or writing difficulties, limited course offerings, a sense of isolation after completing comps/coursework, difficulty finding pertinent information (course outlines, scholarship information), as well as difficulties related to time, energy, work and distance.

Comments: Access to professors was reported as the main factor that enabled students’ studies and lack of access to professors was identified as one of the most common hindrances for students. Participants provided several recommendations regarding how to improve students’ relationships with faculty members. One student suggested, “a mentorship model, something with some structure akin to the supervisory cycle in PDP or like what exists in clinical practices, should also be investigated and made more formal for grad student-

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 97 supervisor relationships.” However many students recognized that the lack of time that professors have for students seems to be more of a systemic problem and that changes need to be made at the Faculty level in order to reduce the burden on professors so they can be more available for students. Suggestions included creating programs that address multiple concerns. For example, offering research fellowships would increase funding and mentorship opportunities for graduate students while easing the burden for professors by providing them with research assistants. Other suggestions included providing structured, regular, coordinator-led meetings for graduate students working on their theses/dissertations, possibly based on “research clusters.” Such meetings would give graduate students more access to faculty members, as well as their colleagues and hopefully group meetings would reduce the number of individual meetings for professors.

One theme that was evident across issues and across programs was lack of communication and the need to make implicit processes, explicit. Students suggested more workshops and orientations would be helpful in this regards, specifically for returning students and PhD students. Recently there have been some changes in the Graduate Programs office that may have exacerbated the communication problem. The Graduate Programs Newsletter, which contains vital information including information about scholarships, is no longer mailed in a paper format to students but is available in PDF format on the front page of the Graduate programs. Another change is that the education graduate students’ email list, which used to be an open listed is now closed and only certain people are able to send messages to the list. Messages are vetted through secretaries and often the original sender and/or title of the email is obscured. Despite assurances that all registered and on-leave graduate students are on the list, it seems that some students are not receiving messages. Questions arising: (*) can the members on the graduate student email list be confirmed? Can we review the Graduate Programs website to ensure that all necessary information is available, current and easy to find?

One problem in regards to the application and distribution of resources seems to be that various resources seem to serve dual purposes. For example, scholarships function as financial aid as well as recognitions of merit, and instructional and research related work serves as funding for graduate students as well as opportunities for mentorship and experience. Questions arising: (*) Can we clarify what opportunities are available to whom, make the application and allocation process of scholarships, jobs and awards more transparent, and provide multiple opportunities that meet different needs, e.g. more awards of merit without financial prizes, research experiences that are not necessarily paid employment?

Another common concern was the lack of consistency across courses, a lack of continuity within programs and a lack of connection between programs. Faculty events provide some opportunities for people to meet others outside their programs and this is one of the founding principles of the EWOB conference. However these events seem to be insufficient in this regard and are clearly not accessible for all graduate students. Questions arising: (*) Is there a process for reviewing the consistency of curriculum and examining the continuity of courses within a program? How can we find a good balance between creating course descriptions that are flexible enough to allow for the expertise of individual faculty members and ensuring that core content is provided? How can online technologies be used to create spaces for faculty and students to connect with others outside of their areas?

Participants’ descriptions of the method of instruction were not consistent with the Faculty’s commitment to “leading-edge pedagogy and innovative curriculum,” or “ethical practice, equity, social justice and diversity,” as stated in their mission statement. Comments regarding the students’ perceptions of instructional methods were particularly insightful. This information should be edited to ensure confidentially and anonymity and made available to instructors in the FOE as a resource for professional development.

Undergraduates students provided much more favorable evaluations of the Faculty’s pedagogy than graduate students. Questions arising: (*) Is it possible that the quality of instruction is lower in graduate courses than in undergraduate courses or that the instructors who teach at the upper levels do not have the same pedagogical skills or do not put in as much effort as those who teach in undergraduate programs? Do graduate courses have a higher percentage of instructors (men) “professing” and undergraduate courses have a greater number of instructors (women) doing “care work”? Do different types of people with different philosophies of education and different credentials teach in different programs? Alternatively perhaps students

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 98 in undergraduate programs are much more satisfied with the instructional methods in the FOE than graduate students because they are more familiar with more didactic pedagogies used outside of the FOE?

There were serious concerns expressed that were specific to particular programs, most notably the EdD students and the International Med Cohort. In general, students in these programs reported that they did not received good value considering the high tuition that they paid. These concerns need to be reviewed with members of these programs, situated within their cultural and historical contexts, and seriously examined. Questions arising: (*) Are there benefits afforded to the EdD students and International cohorts which warrant the high cost of tuition and justify the restriction of resources or are these programs based on outdated models of professional programs and international education?

This report was complied by Cher Hill. The experience that I bring to this work comes from over eight years as a graduate student in the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser University. I have an MA (Individual Program with focus in Education and Technology) and am currently a PhD Candidate in the Curriculum program. I have a background in psychology and have also taken Educational Psychology graduate courses. I have extensive knowledge of the experiences of graduate students through my work with the EGSA over the past five years and my work as a sessional instructor for graduate programs and field programs. I have less knowledge of the EdD program or the international programs and felt this was the biggest gap in my knowledge of graduate student issues which might provide a richer interpretive background for understanding and representing feedback from this group of students, in particular.

5.2 Scholarships and Student Funding

Current Director’s Note: Student funding has been an ongoing challenge in our Faculty. Scholarship opportunities are in general limited, and require a lot of work to secure. I believe that we can improve the chance of our students winning scholarships by more workshops, mentoring and tutoring in the art of scholarship application.

Our Faculty’s success rate in the SSHRC PhD fellowship competition this year: successful unsuccessful

ARCH 2 3 40% BUS 2 1 67% CMNS 4 8 33% CRIM 3 2 60% ECON 1 1 50% EDUC 3 7 30% ENGL 5 9 36% GEOG 2 3 40% HIST 4 4 50% PHIL 3 1 75% POL 1 3 25% PSYC 7 8 47% SA 2 2 50% SAR 1 3 25% SIAT 2 0 100% WS 1 2 33%

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 99 (The following is a table that shows how much funding was provided to students through hiring them as Sessionals, RAs, TA’s. and TM’s.)

Funding provided to Education Graduate Students through Sessional Instruction, Teaching & Research Assistantships and Tutor Marker

Semester Type Doctoral Masters Total Percent $Value students Students No. of of students Students

06-3 SI 34 $108,379 - 34 $108,379 (Fall-06) TA 5 S20,595.53 5 21,121.00 10 $41,716.53 RA 19 $157,830.36 6 17,316.71 25 $175,147.07 TM

07-1 SI 64 $309,312.62 - 64 $309,312. 62 (Spring) TA 6 S29,388.00 8 16,037.97 14 $45,425.97 RA 27 $132,262.72 9 28,484.83 36 $160,747.55 TM

07-2 SI 8 $50,329.00 - 8 $50,329.0 0 (Summer) TA - - - - - RA 15 $69,415.90 4 16,740.98 19 $86,156.88 TM

(The following is a memo submitted by the Member-at-Large of Education Graduate Student Association.)

EGSA Member-at-Large, Mark Weiler

As one of the EGSA Members-at-Large, I wanted to express two concerns that have been brought forward by our membership and make two recommendations for the self/faculty review.

1. Funding For Educational Leadership The EdD doctoral program requires students to do academic work that is identical to students in other curriculum and educational psychology doctoral programs. However, being in a professional program, EdD students are not allowed to apply for graduate student fellowships (value of $6000). To change the university policies requires coordinated and on-going effort from the Faculty of Education, Educational Leadership Program, and EGSA.

Request for the self/faculty evaluation: How does the Faculty of Education assist EdD students in acquiring funding that supports them in accomplishing the program requirements necessary to graduate? For example, does the Faculty of Education or the Educational Leadership Program offer guidance to EdD students for applying for funding (e.g., through an introductory course, student handbook, or workshop)? If EdD students do not receive support to acquire the finances necessary to meet their academic requirements, are the current EdD program requirements reasonably set?

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 100 2. Employment opportunities after graduation A long-standing concern of graduate students expressed at EGSA meetings is “With a graduate degree, who in the world will value my knowledge? Can I get a job? What sort of organization would appreciate my degree?” An important issue is to recognize that students are from a variety of backgrounds that influences answers to these questions (e.g., domestic and international; parenting, non-parenting).

Request for the self/faculty evaluation: How could the Faculty of Education have structures in place that communicate to graduate students the many and varied organizational settings in society that would value and appreciate the experiences, knowledge and skills they have developed as graduate students in the Faculty of Education?

5.3 EGSA: The Education Graduate Students’ Association

Graduate student participation is an essential part of the FOE self study. Accordingly, the EGSA (Education Graduate Students Association) was contacted to invite their ideas for how best to contribute to the process. On September 26th, 2007 a meeting of the EGSA Self-Study Sub-Committee was held to consider ways to engage in the self-study leading to the external review. Discussions were extensive, and a full report by the sub-committee was provided detailing their considerations---including significant discussion of demands on students’ time. A thorough review of graduate studies in the FOE is essential institutional research, and it should be conducted. All were enthusiastic and wished to see a comprehensive study of this kind. However it was also agreed that to do this well would require far more time and intensive effort than could realistically be managed by graduate students who are already working/parenting/studying. So despite the enthusiasm for such a process, it is not one which EGSA believes can be undertaken with the time and resources currently available to them. It was stressed that work of this extensive kind would require a paid temporary research position, which, evidently, is not the scope of the present self-study. It was decided to proceed with a web- based questionnaire and with an informal social event at which discussion of and comments about graduate student learning and working conditions in the faculty of education would be sought. We do however take note of the desire for and strong support of a systematic and fuller consideration of graduate studies within the FOE, and we ‘flag’ this as a project to pursue in the follow-up/implementation phase of the present self- study process.

To complement the graduate student survey and expans upon earlier discussions with graduate students, an informal “wine and cheese” event was held on Wed Feb. 6/08 (a previous date had to be cancelled due to snow and the university closure on that day). We had 70 people confirm their attendance, and a reminder to complete the online questionnaire was sent out a few days prior by Heesoon Bai, who was beginning her term as Graduate Programs Director and kindly agreed to co-host the event along with Suzanne de Castell (as Assoc Dean Academic). We also prepared and brought to that event paper copies of the survey, had a bank of laptops for those wishing to complete the survey online, and used notes and observations to try to add to our understanding of graduate student needs, conditions and experiences in the FOE.

REFLECTIONS FROM THE EGSA – FEBRUARY 2008

Who We Are The Education Graduate Student Association (EGSA), founded in 1991, is comprised of all graduate students enrolled in programs of study in the Faculty of Education (FOE) at SFU (this includes full time, part time, on leave, and off campus students). As a graduate student caucus affiliated with the Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS), we receive core funding from the SFSS to support our own initiatives, although this funding is often augmented by support from the Dean of Education and the Director of Graduate Programs in the faculty.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 101 The mandate of the EGSA is to serve the needs of graduate students in the FOE through the promotion of dialogue amongst graduate students, faculty, the university and the greater community, through direct support and advocacy of graduate students, and through the creation of new strategies, initiatives and events that encourage and support graduate students in their studies. In fulfilling our mandate, the EGSA serves graduate students in a number of capacities, and although we sometimes work independently of any other group, we most often work in conjunction with other student organizations, with administrators in the faculty and in the university, and with individual members of the faculty or groups of faculty members.

The EGSA is run by an Executive Committee elected from among currently-enrolled graduate students in the faculty. For the past five years, positions on the Executive have generally been: two co-chairs, one treasurer, one communications coordinator, one executive web-administrator, several at-large representatives, and various representatives who sit on a number of standing student government and faculty committees. This executive body is responsible for the planning and implementation of the various projects and initiatives carried out by the EGSA.

What We Do The EGSA is responsible for a wide range of activities, such as:  Advocacy for and on behalf of our members  Regular meetings for issue discussion, decision making and information dissemination  Colloquia organized by and for graduate students  Symposia and institutes on topics requested for and by graduate students  Conference organization  EDUC 840  Social events, Welcome BBQs and Community Building  Hospitality and Education Working Group  New Graduate Student Orientations  Representation/Activism on Faculty committees  Representation on university committees  Representation on student governance bodies  Support of graduate students in the form of travel grants for conferences

EGSA Accomplishments Over the Past 5 Years Advocacy for and on behalf of Graduate Students In the past, a number of issues have been raised by the EGSA with various administrators inside and outside of the faculty. These issues include:  Thesis Formatting Protocols with the Library  Supervision issues  International Graduate Students and English for Academic purposes  Availability of Faculty for Graduate Student Thesis Committees  Comprehensive Exams  Academic Job Search  Space Issues within the Faculty (working/office space for graduate students)  Gatherings  Ongoing Funding/Scholarship Issues for EdD Students

Within the FOE, the EGSA liaises most often with the Dean’s office and the Director of Graduate Programs, although we also liaise with other offices and departments as we see fit. In our role as advocates, we work as a team to determine the best course of action, and, upon discussion with the affected parties, we move forward.

Regular meetings for issue discussion, decision making and information dissemination The EGSA holds monthly general meetings that all members are invited to attend.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 102 Colloquia organized by and for graduate students Faculty-wide colloquia have been held regularly. Well known scholars have been invited (for example, Nel Noddings, Neloufer de Mel, John Willinsky, and others). Panel discussions have also been organized; recent examples are panels on Internationalization and education, Arts-Based Research, Excellence in teaching, and Diversity. It should be noted that within the last six months the EGSA has formed a partnership with graduate students in the IERG (Imaginative Education Research Group) who are independently running a Colloquia series that showcases graduate student research from within the FOE.

Symposia and institutes on topics requested by graduate students The EGSA has created a number special-topic events as requested by graduate students, the most recent of which have focused on academic job searches, comprehensive exams, and the PhD program itself.

Conference organization For the past six years, the EGSA has initiated, planned and run a major local education conference run for and by graduate students in the FOE. Titled Education With/Out Borders (EWOB), this annual event has become a well-known and much-anticipated gathering, where students and faculty come together to talk and share ideas. The purpose of the Symposium is to promote discussion across specializations within the Faculty and to develop awareness and collaboration among faculty, faculty associates, PDP (Professional Development Program) and graduate students, undergraduate students, sessional instructors, and professional staff. The conference strives to remove restrictions on educational themes that might be discussed, and encourages presenters to be creative in the conceptualization and enactment of their sessions.

In 2006 the EGSA also created and ran an SFU 40th Anniversary conference, which was titled From SFU to the World and Back. This conference brought scholars from all over the world together in Vancouver.

This past fall, several active members of the EGSA hosted GSCOPE (Graduate Student Conference on Philosophy of Education). This event attracted graduate students from all over North America, and provided a venue for stimulating intellectual exchange.

EDUC 840 In the Spring of 2005 a subcommittee of the EGSA executive, in response to the PhD review report (the research of which was originally conducted by Professor Suzanne de Castell in the Fall of 2003, and which was then written up by the Director of Graduate Programs in the Fall of 2004), created a list of suggestions for how issues raised in the report could be addressed immediately. One of these suggestions, the creation of a Graduate Seminar that would orient new graduate students to some of the workings of academic life in the FOE, was picked up by quickly by the Director of Graduate Programs. This class, titled EDUC 840, has been an optional course for the last few years, but is currently slated to become a mandatory non-credit course for all incoming PhD students (in the Curriculum Theory and Implementation Program) in the Fall of 2008. Graduate students meet faculty members and hear about their research, learn about funding opportunities in the faculty and in the university, learn about how to build a CV and create cover letters for job applications, and acquire many other skills that are not widely disseminated in the academy.

Publications The SFU Educational Review, an open-source, peer-reviewed, online annual proceedings of the Education With/Out Borders Symposium, works in the spirit of removing educational borders. It is the SFU Ed Review’s intention to encourage and nurture alternative ideas in teaching, learning, research and scholarship over a wide range of topics within the field of education. One of the important goals of the annual is to foster greater inclusivity, as well as to provide a space for different forms and genres not usually found in more traditional scholarly journals. Made possible through a generous contribution from the Dean’s office, the SFU Ed Review was the brain child of several EGSA members.

Social events, Welcome BBQs and Community Building The EGSA holds a Welcome BBQ each year and at least one social event every semester. These social events are an opportunity for graduate students to meet, find, and build a sense of graduate student community. Through laughter and conversation, graduate students get to make personal connections that become a

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 103 source of inspiration, support, and engagement that is necessary for creating, sustaining, and nourishing a robust and diverse community of graduate students.

Hospitality and Education Working Group The EGSA has organized a Hospitality and Education Working Group. This group extends an invitation to all graduate students to meet, read, and discuss academic articles in education journals on the topic of hospitality in education. These meetings are also coordinated with events or venues of local interest. This has been a way for EGSA to introduce international graduate students to the Lower mainland while also cultivating an international academic community based on the study and discussion of current academic writing in education.

New Graduate Student Orientations Graduate Programs invites EGSA executive members to attend and present at orientations for graduate students who are new to the faculty. EGSA has participate in this event, detailing to the new graduate students about the services of EGSA, the role of EGSA, and also sharing some experiences of being a graduate student at SFU.

Representation on Faculty committees The EGSA has two seats on the Graduate Programs Committee which meets every month, and this is perhaps our most regular contact with the administration and where we most often air our opinions, grievances, praise and support. We also have standing representation on the CET Advisory committee, and on others as needed. These include the Dean’s Search, the Evaluation Committee, the 40th Anniversary celebrations committee, and others.

Representation on University committees Although the EGSA does not have standing representation on any particular university committees, we currently have representatives on the SFU Academic Senate and the Senate Graduate Studies Committee. In the past, executives of the EGSA have sat on the Dean of Graduate Studies Search Committee, and other search committees for top university administrator positions. We sit on other university governance bodies as needed/requested.

Representation on student governance bodies The EGSA has standing representation on the SFSS Forum, SFSS Graduate Issues Committee, and in the Graduate Student Society Grad Council. Several of our EGSA members have been extremely active in participating in the SFSS, and one of our members has been instrumental in forming the Graduate Student Society.

Support of graduate students in the form of travel grants for conferences Through funding from the SFSS, the EGSA is able to provide a small number of travel grants to graduate students in the FOE. Although we wish we could provide more opportunities for this kind of funding, our budget allocation from the SFSS is severely limited. As it stands, we usually can provide between 5 and 7 grants of $100 each to students from the faculty who are presenting at a conference.

Current Challenges The EGSA is the largest graduate student caucus in the university, but because many of the students are pursuing their graduate degrees part time, usually while working at full time jobs and/or raising a family, it is difficult to attract students to participate in student governance. Most often the EGSA executive is filled by PhD students, some Masters students have been active from time to time. The recruitment of new executive members, and the creation and maintenance of collegial working relationships between our members and the executive is a continual job.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 104 Another challenge faced by the EGSA is time availability. Funding and finances are major concerns for students, and the vast majority have to work full time while they are studying. With so many graduate students in the FOE working full time, doing their studies part time, studying in an off-campus or field program, raising a family, or any number of other commitments, it is generally up to only a small number of EGSA executives who carry out the bulk of the work. This leads to serious burnout in many of the EGSA executive, although it also seems that some former executives try to stay involved for years after they have finished their terms.

The EGSA is concerned about the hospitality and community building that is currently available for international students, and the new international cohorts from Asia in particular. Another issue we have is that service is generally under-recognized as a valuable contribution in academic circles. Not only are graduate students doing a tremendous amount of work, they are doing it strictly as a service to their fellow students, to the faculty, and to the university community as a whole. The EGSA works hard to make sure that education graduate students are well supported and always have a place where their voice can be heard, and it is unfortunately that academic culture does not overtly value service.

Relationships It is important to point out that the EGSA currently enjoys a very close and collegial relationship with the Dean’s office. The support from the Dean, and from the entire Executive, has been unprecedented in its scope over the last five years the Dean and Executive have funded major initiatives proposed by the EGSA (SFU Educational Review, Education With/Out Borders Symposium, the EGSA Colloquium Series, EGSA Socials at CSSE, among others). The Director of Graduate Programs has also been a strong supporter and ally of the EGSA, and the Director has often given financial and other forms of support for the EGSA’s initiatives.

The EGSA also enjoys excellent relationships with quite a few members of the faculty, although we very much would like to see these relationships expand. We are especially eager to grow our relationships with new faculty members, and we wish to see even greater participation on the part of faculty members in the EGSA’s activities and events. Participation of faculty in the annual EWOB conference, for example, has been declining in recent years, and we wish to see this trend turn around.

Our links with the Education Student Association (ESA) is, unfortunately, rather weak. The ESA is the undergraduate and PDP student union for the faculty of education, and although in the past there have been periodic episodes of mutual representation, our needs are often thought to be rather disparate.

5.4 Educational Review

Johanne Provençal and Mark Weiler, SFU Educational Review Co-Directors, 2007-2008

As co-directors of the SFU Educational Review, we submit here a brief report for consideration by those undertaking the Faculty of Education Self/Faculty-study. The purpose of this document is to report some of our concerns to the FOE and to put forth specific questions for the external reviewers to consider when evaluating the faculty.

In 2006, a commitment of three years of financial support was made to the EGSA to launch the SFU Educational Review, a peer-reviewed and peer-edited selection of work presented annually at the Education With/Out Borders (EWOB) Symposium. We gratefully acknowledge this support as the Review successfully launched the inaugural issue in March 2007 and is now currently in its second year of the three-year cycle and on schedule with all planned deliverables and timelines. A report after the first year was submitted to the FOE and in the current year a succession plan is being drafted so future graduate students will be able to gain experience with peer-review and scholarly publishing. The second issue of the Review is scheduled for publication in the current semester.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 105 We ask you to consider what the SFU Educational Review brings to the Faculty of Education. The Review was created in part to serve as an important transitional space that equips graduate students with important educational experiences and durable knowledge that will support them in moving from graduate school to participate more fully in their academic fields beyond the walls of our Faculty of Education. With each issue published, approximately thirty graduate students enter the transitional space of the Review, gaining experience and durable knowledge as authors, reviewers, editors, layout-managers, copy-editors, and web- coordinators of an on-line journal. These students have been from Math Education, Arts Education, Curriculum Theory and Educational Psychology. All education graduate students are welcome to participate in the Review.

In creating this educational space for graduate students, however, we have noted some challenges: 1. Lack of support from faculty members In the fall of 2008, on behalf of the students who would be acting as reviewers for the second issue of the Review, the editorial team asked faculty members to fill out a websurvey in which they would share their advice on how to review journal submissions. This request for support was sent to all program coordinators and forwarded on to faculty maillist. The websurvey was very short, consisting of only one substantive question: “What advice do you have for graduate students when they are reviewing for a journal?” The editorial team planned to collate the responses and given them as a sort of handbook for the reviewers of the Review.

We were disappointed to find that of approximately 60 faculty members in the FOE, only four provided responses. This lack of support by faculty members made it difficult for the editorial team to equip our reviewers with advice. We are still somewhat baffled by this lack of response, considering that the websurvey contained only one question.

Request: We ask the Self/Faculty Study external reviewers to evaluate what in the Faculty of Education may impede faculty members from providing support to graduate students who explicitly request very basic forms of support?

2. Quality of academic writing We also have a concern about the quality of the academic writing in the work submitted by authors. We are confident in the abilities and talents of graduate students but are let to wonder why many have submitted what seems to be sub-standard academic writing. The SFU Educational Review is not a forum to teach graduate students academic writing. Our concern is that the graduate students may not be receiving sufficient support in their graduate programs here in the Faculty of Education to develop their academic writing.

To substantiate this claim, we note EGSA’s observation that some PhD courses have had (and continue to have) registration levels of more than 20 students. We question whether graduate students in these large classes are able to receive sufficient support in their work – specifically, in writing up their work – from faculty members when enrollment in such courses is so high.

Request: We ask that the external reviewers evaluate what in the Faculty of Education supports and/or impedes graduate student from being mentored in academic writing (including factors like teacher:student ratios in graduate courses for masters and PhD students, seminars on academic writing, availability of examples of things like cover letters to journals, etc.).

3. Recognizing academic opportunities: Students, Faculty and the Review Another purpose of the Review is to provide a forum to capture the diversity of work presented at Education With/Out Borders (EWOB). The sections in the journal invite traditional articles as well as artwork and “alternative” forms of work. Although EWOB brings out increasing numbers every year, relatively few submissions have been made to the Review and of those, only a very small number (usually not more than four) are deemed acceptable for publication after the blind peer-review process. Only one or two members of Faculty submit work. Although we understand that the Review does not offer a “publishing credit” on par with long-established journals, it does provide an opportunity for graduate students to experience peer review early on in their studies (yet the student work submitted would indicate that there is a need for graduate

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 106 students to learn what “publishable” means). Also, the explicit invitation of “alternative” forms or research and scholarship provides Faculty and graduate students both with an opportunity to present work that would otherwise not fall under the traditional category of “articles” that is common to other journals (yet, there are relatively few of these submissions – which is somewhere the Faculty could certainly take an innovative lead).

Request: We ask that the external reviewers evaluate how the Faculty supports the local and innovative initiatives of our graduate students and how these initiatives can be extended with further support from the Faculty. In short, we feel certain that the Review cannot succeed with financial support alone. We need Faculty members to serve in an advisory capacity and for the opportunities that the Review presents to graduate students to be celebrated and if at all possible, integrated, into Faculty activities.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 107 6. Educational Communities: Field Programs in the Faculty of Education

6.1 Communities and Markets: A Delicate Balance

Our Field Programs have created innovative opportunities for in-service educators to pursue critical inquiry and professional growth with an academic focus. While the university as a whole struggles to find its place beyond academic settings, students in Field Programs engage in their academic programs in existing and developing communities of practice, thriving in the tensions perceived to exist between theory and practice.

Field Programs is maturing as a program area in the Faculty of Education. Its activities and resources are now, more than ever, focused on academic programs (Graduate Diploma and Masters of Education in Educational Practice). Since the External Review seven years ago, its non-credit initiatives, networking and consultation activities have been diminishing. An increase in academic, credit-generating activity parallels the transition away from cost-recovery funding. Field Programs’ funding is now based on a premium fee formula for both the Graduate Diploma and the Masters in Education in Educational Practice (MEd EP). This model was developed by the office of the Vice President, Academic as a preferred method of funding dispersal for all University programs considered “premium” programs.

Within Field Programs and across school districts, there is a strong, positive consensus regarding the role played by the unit’s activities in the work of the Faculty of Education and in the lifelong professional development of educators. Faculty Associates and the Coordinator develop strong relationships with school districts and teachers in the on-going process of designing academic programs responsive to local initiatives and needs. The students feel well served by the support staff. The greatest cause for concern within Field Programs is the precarious nature of our funding.

Beyond Field Programs, and within the Faculty of Education, the legacy of rapid growth that began during the years of funding via the cost-recovery model has resulted in an identity crisis. It has left many faculty members with concerns that the activities of this unit are “market-driven” and “entrepreneurial.” They associate this with a lack of academic rigour. Their perceptions likely arise from a number of features of past and current program operations.

 Cost-recovery: There are suspicions that academic rigour has been compromised in order to “seal the deal” during negotiations with stakeholders.  Rapid growth: The popularity of the Graduate Diploma and MEd EP programs with students and stakeholders has fueled perceptions that teachers see them as an easy route to a salary increase.  Recruitment and retention of students: Some faculty members feel students’ wishes and needs (easy workload, summer holidays) have trumped the commitment to rigorous pedagogy and scholarship characteristic of study at the graduate level.  Faculty involvement: A relatively small number of tenure-track faculty teach in field programs or have taught in either the Graduate Diploma or M.Ed. programs, so perceptions are often based on anecdotal evidence or a limited understanding of the context.

We feel Field Programs has succeeded in its efforts to develop strong, productive relationships with students and partners outside the FOE but it needs to work on those with colleagues within the Faculty of Education. Clearly, Field Programs needs evidence to substantiate its claims of program effectiveness and student transformation. We plan to use this period of dwindling fiscal resources to invite greater collaboration with, and involvement of, our tenure-track colleagues through a number of activities designed to improve their understanding of the work of Field Programs. We will also undertake systematic inquiry focused on our own work. Descriptions of strategies for these activities appear throughout the material that follows. Having said this, we acknowledge that we are likely to be undertaking these initiatives in a climate of fiscal uncertainty. Although we have developed plans and strategies, we invite the advice of the External Reviewers on ways to minimize the impact of our precarious funding on the work we do. We ask:

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 108 • How can we respond to the needs of the field, the Faculty, and the university in the face of the financial uncertainties we are faced with? • In order to meet the current and future demands, what is ‘optimal growth’ in light of these fiscal uncertainties?

6.2 Field Programs Report: Program Team, Faculty Associates and Support Staff

6.2.1 HISTORY OF THE UNIT

Field Programs was established as a distinct administrative unit of the Faculty of Education in 1993 under the name “Field Relations and Teacher In-service Education.” Prior to this, the main activity of the unit occurred under the auspices of the “Project Office,” an area of the Dean’s portfolio originally formed to develop connections between SFU and other agencies that would support teacher in-service education in the field.

Field Programs can be thought of as a set of relations between the Faculty of Education and external educational agencies and institutions-ministries, school districts, consortia, interest groups and networks of educators. The programs that have emerged from these relations allow practitioners to examine deeply their own practice in the light of current research in education. These programs also draw on the resources of school districts and other agencies, linking local experts and leaders with University Faculty and In-service Faculty Associates in collaborative, focused investigations of various contemporary themes in education. The work of Field Programs goes beyond traditional university activities in other ways as well. This unit has served as a hub for networks connecting educators across the province and beyond. It has provided consultative services to school districts, as well as non-credit professional development in areas of current concern. Field Programs activities are based on well-grounded research in teacher development and life-long learning: we help school districts and other agencies to build intellectual capacity for dealing with contemporary problems and issues in society and the public school system.

The Field Programs Committee serves as an advisory board to Field Programs faculty and staff. Comprised of the Field Programs Director, the In-Service Coordinator, four elected tenure-track Faculty, and two In-Service Faculty Associates, this committee oversees and reviews the growth and development of initiatives. This committee meets monthly and is chaired by the Director of Field Programs.

STAFFING

Director—Dr Lannie Kanevsky (Dr. Kanevsky took over as Acting Director of Field Programs in January 2008 following the resignation of Dr Allan MacKinnon)

In-Service Coordinator—Suzanne Arkell (full-time seconded position 2004-2006 following 4 years as a seconded Faculty Associate; SFU appointment since 2006)

Senior Lecturer—Michael Ling (full-time position since January 2007 but currently part-time with Field Programs; previously Limited Term Lecturer with the faculty since 2003)

Faculty Associates—7 full-time seconded positions and 1 full-time SFU position, as follows:  Barbara Kolbus—seconded from Surrey SD from January 2003  Kathy Neilson—seconded from Abbotsford SD from July 2004  Alison Davies—seconded from S Coast SD from July 2001 (part-time from July 2004-June 2007)  Julia Leong—seconded from Vancouver SD from July 2004  Betty Gilgoff—seconded from Vancouver SD from January 2007  Penny Ketola—seconded from Maple Ridge SD from July 2007  Kelly Burt—seconded from Delta SD from July 2006  Luba Banuke—on staff from July 2006 (funded by the Bureau des affaires francophone et Francophile and Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs [BAFF/OFFA])

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 109 APSA staff—2 full-time positions, as follows:  Assistant to the Director—Maureen Templeton (from 1999)  Administrative Co-ordinator—Lisa Grebinsky (new position as of April 2007)

CUPE staff—5 positions, as follows:  Program Assistant—Bridget Fox (full-time, since 2004)  Program Assistant—Gina Romeo (part-time, since 2004; full-time from 1994-2004)  Registration Secretary—Dianne Gordon (part-time, from 2001)  Department Secretary—Murielle Cayer (full-time, from 1997)  Desktop Publisher & Web Designer—Kathie Wraight (full-time, from 2001; contracted from 1997- 2001)

Field Programs has been exploring a unique instructional team approach that incorporates mentors, who facilitate small groups of teachers in field study activities, together with Field Programs and other SFU personnel who undertake the coordination of learning activities for each graduate diploma program. Therefore, in addition to the above- mentioned personnel, Graduate Diploma program instructional teams also include sessional instructors, mentors (part-time adjunct associates) and school district contacts, and MEd EP program instructional teams include faculty members and the occasional sessional instructor. This staffing model has proven both cost-effective and educationally appropriate particularly for our graduate diploma programs, as it enhances program integrity and coherence while reducing sessional instructor costs.

PROGRAM OFFERINGS Field Programs offers credit and non-credit opportunities for practicing teachers (in-service), mainly in the BC public school system. Current credit opportunities include:

• Graduate Diploma in Education (GDE)—The GDE is a two-year, 30 credit (minimum) program which provides teachers with an opportunity to focus on their practice and gain a TQS (Teacher Qualification Service) category salary upgrade. Programs are cohort-based, are offered locally in school districts and are designed in collaboration with school district personnel. • Masters of Education in Educational Practice (MEd EP)—Once completing the GDE, teachers may apply for the MEd EP which provides a third year (20 credits) of study culminating in a Masters degree. This program is also cohort-based and is offered regionally. It allows teachers to gain an additional TQS category salary upgrade while furthering their understanding of practice and investigating the relevant research. • Undergraduate Courses—Teachers wishing to complete their Bachelor of General Studies (BGS) may take the GDE for undergraduate credit. Field Programs has also worked with other organizations from time to time to offer coursework for teachers requiring specific training opportunities (i.e. Montessori Post Baccalaureate Diploma, Provincial Outreach Program for Autism and Related Disorders (POPARD) for specific autism courses, etc.) In addition to the above: • French/FSL GDEs—Field Programs also offers GDEs in French and French as a Second Language (FSL) with financial support from SFU’s BAFF/OFFA office. The French School Board (Conseil Scolaire Francophone) is also providing support for some programs. • Learning Facilitators Certificate—There are currently several support workers in Northern B.C. taking the GDE for non-credit at SFU alongside the classroom teachers they work with who are taking the GDE for credit. Field Programs is working with Thompson Rivers University (TRU) to transfer credit for their coursework to the TRU Learning Facilitators (LEFA) Certificate. • Currently, non-credit workshop series are being offered around the province in French Immersion and FSL with financial support from the BAFF/OFFA office.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 110 Student enrollments (graduate and undergraduate) are shown in the graphs below:

14000

12000

10000

8000

MEd EP Credits 6000 GDE Credits

4000

2000

0 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

1600

1400

1200

1000

800 GDE Undergrad Credits

600 Undergrad Credits

400

200

0 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Field Programs currently receives the majority of its funding from student fees via the Vice President Academic’s premium fee formula. In addition to this funding, Field Programs has the following sources of income:

• Undergraduate Fees—a set amount is received for each undergraduate credit generated (for both undergraduate courses offered and for undergraduate students registered in Graduate Diploma courses) • Ministry of Education—a small per credit fee is available for French courses on application to the Ministry

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 111 • Non-Credit Fees—a small number of non-credit students taking Graduate Diploma courses in Fort Ware pay tuition to Field Programs; fees are then paid to Thompson Rivers University when students’ courses are transferred to their LEFA program for credit.

The operations of Field Programs worked very well within the cost-recovery model (a percentage of the fees returning to the faculty to fund its programs) because it blended so easily with the nature of our programs— our responsiveness to the needs of school districts and teachers in the field, the flexibility of being able to make changes according to the needs of our partner agencies and also to offer programs on either a shorter- or longer-term timeline and the collaborative nature of our relationship with school districts, for example. Under the new formula, we are being restricted to offering a set number of credits per fiscal year, and so we have been left with the potential of offering more programs than we have been funded for, and therefore must restrict program development, jeopardizing our relationships with our partners.

6.2.2. ASSESSMENT OF THE PREVIOUS EXTERNAL REVIEW

The 2001 External Review Committee acknowledged the difficulty in “contributing to the further professional development of the teachers in BC schools” and reported “all the indications are that the Faculty is doing an excellent job here. The Field Programs are very popular, which is an indication of their high standing in the eyes of members of the teaching profession.” (p. 19) Two features of Field Programs’ Graduate Diploma Programs raised concerns in the Report of the External Examiners in 2001: a lack of alignment with SFU graduate studies procedures and the culminating assessment of students’ work in the Graduate Diploma Program.

The Review Committee is of the opinion that it is possible to reduce the apparent conflict with SFU norms in a manner that should satisfy the valid concerns of both the Faculty and of SFU graduate administrators. The Review Committee therefore recommends that the Faculty explore the feasibility of requiring students in the diploma program to maintain a portfolio of documents that indicate their professional growth during the period in which they are enrolled, and which would have to be assessed before graduation (for example, via a face-to-face meeting with two program faculty). (p. 4)1

Regarding the first concern, Field Programs has worked with SFU’s Graduate Studies and its procedures are now consistent with those of the University. On the second point, the suggestion that portfolios be implemented reflected a misunderstanding as this process was already in place in 2001. Both then and now, students develop a baseline portfolio at the beginning of the program, which is elaborated throughout the program. Every cohort now celebrates the conclusion of the Diploma Program with a “Comprehensive Portfolio”. Each student’s portfolio (synthesis of learning) and presentation are the focus of the culminating assessment.

6.2.3. LONG-TERM FUTURE DIRECTION

Until recently the long-term plan was based on a “continuous growth” model, however recent budget cutbacks have curtailed our anticipated expansion. (see Section 8 for further information regarding the shift in funding arrangements from 2001 until now). We are also improving our understanding of the inner workings of the premium fee funding process and structure so will be able to plan more strategically in the future.

STRATEGIES

1 Phillips, D.C. & Magsino, R.F (2001). Report of the External Review Committee for the Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 112  We see a growing need to liaise more frequently with Dean’s Office to ensure a shared understanding of Field Programs’ funding model and procedures for applying for further funding.  The Field Programs team will meet monthly to discuss program plans and consider new initiatives (GDip and MEd) in light of interest from school districts & current conditions and resources within the university and Field Programs.  We will be looking for new/other opportunities to provide teachers with professional growth experiences in pedagogically sound formats (e.g. providing non-credit workshop series, district partnerships to support new platforms of professional development).  We wish to increase the involvement of tenure-track faculty in the GDip and MEd EP in order to enhance mutual understanding of other’s work and wisdom.  We will increase collaboration with other units in the Faculty of Education in areas of shared interest and concerns (e.g. self-study methods, programs evaluation, student assessment, etc.)

6.2.4. SHORT-TERM PLANNING

Our most recent 3-year plan follows this text.

We are currently engaged in the process of welcoming a new Director, initiating a review of our programs and processes, and developing a budget proposal. We recently sought and received funding for an additional 2300 credits (an increase from 9000 to 11300) for our Diploma programs in the 08/09 academic year.

PRIORITY AREAS  Monitor and stabilize finances: we will continue to liaise with the Dean’s office recognizing that we have no ultimate control over the stability of finances  Undertake a review of financial efficiencies: we wish to review program design, curriculum, instruction, and resources in order to provide high quality, cost-effective programs.  Managing the demand for the MEd EP: in light of the limited opportunities that we can provide (we can only draw 15-20% of Diploma students into MEd EP. we must be mindful of the locations we select for future cohorts.  Team-building for MEd EP: we have recently established an MEd EP advisory committee which is actively engaged in revising the admissions materials, criteria, and program structure and content. We will also develop administrative procedures to facilitate the application and selection process.  Initiate an on-going, systematic self-study (see Section 5)  Streamline the course registration process: beginning in 08-3, all Field Programs students will register themselves on the SIMS system  Streamline communication: continue to refine the use of mail lists (listservs) in order to communicate with all FP students, mentors, and instructors

6.2.5. RESEARCH PROGRAM AND AGENDA

The unit intends to pursue two main areas of research, namely:  A systematic and rigourous self-study of our various approaches to programs in order to gain an understanding of both the common threads that link us, and the distinctive aspects of each program (in all the diplomas and the Masters). This self-study would attempt to examine thoughtfully and self-critically the relationship between our philosophy and our practices. It would involve clarifying our philosophy and epistemology by scrutinizing the assumptions we bring to the development and delivery of programs, which we feel is unique and is to be cherished, but which could bear a timely examination. We would then examine our actual programmatic and pedagogical practices within our various programs to see how and/or whether we are embodying those ideals as fully as we hope. We feel this is an important avenue of research as it will help us to define our aims and our methods in order to refine our general approach, which could be best described as a ‘learner-based, critically reflective pedagogy within a community of

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 113 practice.’ We could say that this stream of research is ‘inwardly focused’ on the work we do individually and as a unit. It would involve both our academic and administrative personnel.  A systematic and rigourous study of the work of our students during and after their time in our programs in order to assess the significance of the work of these teachers with an eye to seeing if there is ongoing pursuit of the ideals we hope to create a space for in our programs. We could say this stream of research would be ‘outwardly focused,’ primarily, on the relationships we have with our students, (but also, by extension with their students in schools and classrooms, the districts, administrators, programmers, and the community at large), all toward identifying the ‘effect’ these programs have on the participants’ practices and their communities.

These two areas of research would provide a focused examination of our strengths, and help identify areas in which we can improve, as a way to enhance and strengthen what we do.

At present, work has been undertaken by various members of the unit to develop this research in the form of a Research/Reading Group examining key aspects of our philosophy and pedagogy, and in several working and conference papers on pertinent topics. This past year, a doctoral study and dissertation concerned with one particular program was completed, the results of which have been presented in a number of public forums.

We would like to develop this work further by creating opportunities for research among members of our own team, for graduate students in the Faculty, and for research faculty as well. In addition, Field Programs plans to sponsor symposia focusing on practitioner inquiry/teacher research and self-study methods. We will invite the participation of students and faculty beyond those already involved in Field Programs.

In the fall of 2002, Field Programs established two graduate research fellowships in order to support systematic investigations of our work-a Masters fellowship at $2,400 and a Doctoral at $2,600. The rationale for this was based on the fact that most of the evidence to support the belief that our model for teacher in- service development is effective in changing teacher attitudes and practices was mostly anecdotal. To date, three individuals have benefited from this support.

In part owing to our emphasis as a teaching, rather than as a research, unit specifically, to date there has been little directly targeted funding for this kind of research. However, money has been allocated over the past couple of years for a number of presentations at conferences concerned with work that has been done in the unit. It is our aim and hope that we can obtain and secure funding to develop a research agenda in earnest through collaborative research development and planning with faculty, and through discussions with school districts, as well as through our own offices. In a time of fiscal restraint, however, we are concerned about the extent to which we can accomplish this, and are seeking creative and viable ways to do so. Overall, our aim in doing this research is to enhance our relationships with ‘the field’ as well as to strengthen our own understandings of our work.

6.2.6. TEACHING PROGRAM AND INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT

We feel our pedagogies and instructional approaches are significantly compatible with both our philosophy and practice, and so we likewise feel they have proven very effective for student learning. Because our approach is premised on principles and models of self-directed learning within a cohort or community of practice, we feel we provide an environment and scaffolding that allows students to both critically reflect on their practice, and deepen this reflection through ongoing critical dialogue with theoretical readings, colleagues, mentors, instructors and FAs. We feel this in itself is a significant and innovative pedagogical approach which can be summarized in the following four philosophical principles:

 The construction and reconstruction of understandings about teaching and learning are fundamental to creating new ways of knowing and being as educators.  Learning is nurtured and facilitated when teachers have opportunities to inquire into areas of their practice that they find personally and professionally significant.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 114  Educational change is fostered when teachers have opportunities to engage in sustained dialogues about aspects of their practice that are personally and professionally meaningful to them, and when the dilemmas and discomforts of educational change are acknowledged and acted upon.  The presence of a supportive learning environment that includes mentorship and collaboration contributes significantly to the depth and breadth of learning that occurs.

Furthermore, our approach is shaped by a set of 5 ‘core capacities’ that we endeavor to embody ourselves, and which we hope to encourage in our students. These core capacities are: reflection, critical thinking, collaboration, ethics, and inquiry.

In practical terms, the philosophical principles and the capacities are explored through a combination of courses, readings, interactions with cohort members, mentors, and instructors, and importantly, via ‘focused inquiries’ and ‘field studies’ which the students undertake in their classrooms in order to investigate their teaching practice, the results of which are then presented in various kinds of ‘portfolios’ (e.g. baseline portfolios at the beginning of a program, working portfolios throughout, and demonstration portfolios as summative representations of their learning).

Having said all this, we would, however, like to pursue systematic research into our pedagogies and instructional approaches so as to refine, modify, and/or simply to understand more fully our philosophy and practice (see Section 5).

Regarding potential opportunities for incorporating technology-enhanced learning, one of our programs (TLITE Teaching and Learning in a Technology Environment) is explicitly concerned with this, though we should add that all our programs provide spaces for our students to be presented with, and/or to initiate of their own accord, explorations of technology-focused pedagogies as they see fit. This, we feel, makes for more organic and genuine involvement of technology in teaching, from the ground up, or ‘in context,’ as it were, as opposed to being ‘delivered.’ However, it should be noted that because we teach ‘in the field’, the availability of personnel, equipment, and/or networks for supporting explicitly ‘technological’ approaches vary with the setting, facilities, and the focus of the program.

Our teaching resources are supported by nine learning modules, containing specific capacities and learning tools, and a website on which students can locate these materials specifically designed for the Graduate Diplomas. These modules and tools were specifically developed for framing our programs along our philosophical premises and for supporting our students in a very concrete and demonstrable way.

The teaching workload is shared between FAs (who also coordinate, as well as teach in, their programs), tenure-track faculty, and sessional lecturers. Since we operate on a ‘differentiated staffing’ model, these roles are somewhat more fluid and flexible than they may be in more ‘traditional’ approaches to coursework, but they are nevertheless entirely compatible with our educational principles and goals.

6.2.7. FACULTY AND STAFF RESOURCES

There are four main issues facing the unit with regard to staffing.  The first concerns the difficulties associated with the secondment of faculty associates. SFU offers each FA a contract renewal annually, but because school districts’ policies and conditions vary widely, the renewal may be denied at the district level without warning. Much of our work relies on building and maintaining relationships and these uncertainties create a very precarious situation for planning and sustaining programs and for building a well-balanced team.  The second staffing issue we face is the lack of clarity regarding the job security of Suzanne Arkell, in- service coordinator, and the role of Michael Ling, senior lecturer. In Suzanne’s case, questions have arisen regarding the limited length of her contract. She made a decision in 2006 to leave the security of a seconded position from her school district, to take up a full-time appointment at SFU as Field Programs’ in-service coordinator. This decision was made on the understanding that her contract would be similar in length to that of her predecessors – i.e. five years. Unfortunately, this has changed. Contract

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 115 appointments are no longer made for five years so she is faced with considerable uncertainty on one-year contracts. We have just managed to secure a guarantee of a two-year term, with review. For Michael the uncertainty concerns the weight of his teaching load and the resulting limit to his participation in the research interests of the unit. His skills and experience equip him well to lead and support the research activities being undertaken by the FAs; his participation, however, is severely curtailed by the inflexibility of his demanding teaching commitments.  Thirdly, over the next few years, we are facing some challenges in keeping our support staff. We have a number of staff who could potentially choose to retire. Others are discouraged by the limited opportunities for advancement in the Field Programs due to the parameters of the duties required, and the high degree of flexibility and adaptability needed in these positions. The constantly evolving nature of our work can be particularly unsettling, especially for newcomers to Field Programs.  Finally, it is impossible to create long-term plans regarding the number and nature of program offerings or the recruitment or retention of staff without some certainty in funding.

In addition to the above, we face certain challenges in attempting to increase tenure-track faculty involvement in Field Programs. Primarily, we feel it is essential to the coherence of the program that faculty members have some experience working with diploma cohorts before taking on a course in the MEd EP. Because the diploma work and the subsequent MEd EP are unique programs with a focus and set of expectations that differ somewhat from other faculty offerings at the graduate level, we feel that faculty members require experience with students in our Diploma programs to ensure their participation is compatible with our principles and practices while honouring the unique contributions that they make to our programs. So far it has not been easy to engage faculty members in our work or to provide the scaffolding we see as beneficial.

Further, due to the difficulties of designing diploma courses that successfully integrate the SFU semester- calendar with the 10-month calendar of schools, we have struggled to keep faculty members engaged throughout the full two years of the diploma. We have several times been forced on very short notice to find a replacement for a faculty member who elects to drop the Field Programs assignment for an alternative assignment. We would like to advocate to protect these commitments in order to ensure the quality of the programs.

PLANS FOR RENEWAL AND RETENTION

We have created a four-pronged plan to address the above concerns:

 First, we will broach the possibility of securing (renewable) two-year secondments for FAs with school districts and continue to look for potential candidates to fill gaps that may develop in the faculty associate team.  Second, we will continue to investigate the possibility of securing a longer-term contract for our Coordinator to provide stability and continuity to both the position generally and her career in particular. We will also review the role of our Senior Lecturer and negotiate a reasonable workload so that he may contribute his considerable skills and experience in qualitative research with the Field Programs team.  Third, we will work with support staff to implement a long-term staffing plan ensuring adequate cross training of tasks and continuity in workflow. We will investigate and encourage professional development opportunities for the staff to enhance skill and experience, and continue to work with the group, or individuals, to enhance understanding of the nature of work we do in our programs and the environment in which this work occurs. As well we will establish an orientation plan for future hires.  Fourth, we will develop and implement strategies for attracting faculty members to participate in our programs.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 116 6.2.8. RESOURCES

TECHNOLOGY Issues around technology and selection of appropriate software programs continue to be a challenge. We are often faced with changing programs and the necessity of re-training staff within a very short period of time. It would be very helpful if an open consultation and review process were established in regards to software selection, both within the University and our own Faculty, where it is thought desirable to have consistency across program areas or faculties.

INSTRUCTIONAL Our concerns centre on securing suitable and reliable off-campus locations for our programs. Our contracts with districts stipulate that, in exchange for SFU’s design and implementation of a high-quality instructional program, the district will provide free of charge appropriate classroom space that is clean, well-lit, and warm. In recent years, some districts have set limits on available space or service, or—in one case—have insisted on charging a rental fee. In many cases, we have faced resistance when requesting that classrooms be heated during the winter evenings. Further, questions have arisen regarding the responsibility for providing insurance at off-campus sites.

Most of our faculty associates feel that they have adequate access to necessary resources. We maintain a library of print material—textbooks and articles—and have enjoyed the support of SFU’s Education Librarian in providing students and mentors with easy access to SFU’s library. As well, each FA is provided with a laptop and an ergonomic workstation and has access to the FP data projector and digital camera. Other materials are available through the CET or on-site in the school districts.

RESEARCH Field Programs has already established a resource room, which houses both instructional and research resources, and is equipped with a computer. Additional resources to assist research might be a digital voice recorder (to help capture interviews, etc.) and a digital video camera.

BUDGETARY Field Programs was a cost-recovery operation until 2002 when the Vice President Academic decided to review its funding structure. Under the cost-recovery model, 85% of student fees were returned to the Field Programs to cover the cost of running programs in the area (with an additional 7.5% going to the Faculty for overhead). From 2002 to 2004, Field Programs maintained a cost-recovery funding model based on the 2001/02 fees, i.e., none of the additional fees collected from the 30% fee increases during those two years were returned to Field Programs. In 2004, Field Programs was switched to the premium fee model, whereby the Faculty received 80% of the premium fee portion of the fees only and the University retained all the basic fees plus 20% of the premium fee portion. This resulted in a drastic reduction in our income, which was inadequate for funding our programs. Funding negotiations took place between the Faculty and VP Academic’s office over the next two years, and during that time Field Programs received a lump sum “subsidy” each year to enable operations to continue. Finally, in 2006, the Faculty received a new “base” amount for Field Programs. However, in 2007 and again this year, this “base” amount was reduced by $28,000 each year.

As a result of changing and uncertain funding since 2002, it has been extremely difficult to plan effectively. From 2002-2004, costs of our operations rose due to salary and other market increases, yet none of the additional 30% fee increase was passed on to us to help compensate for these costs. From 2004-2006, there was no stable funding formula in place for us to be able to anticipate what our future income might be; indeed, the “subsidy” was only meant to be a temporary solution and the expectation was that we would eventually be able to operate entirely on the premium fees we received. There was a misconception in VPA’s office that we received other “base” funding from the University but this had never been the case. Even once this was clarified and a new “base” budget established in 2006, these funds have not been consistently forthcoming, with amounts for 2007/08 and 2008/09 being reduced. In addition to this we have not even been able to rely on receipt of any additional premium fees “earned” by offering more credits that we had forecast. We are still waiting to receive our 2006/07 additional fees, for example.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 117 The change in credit reporting deadlines also had an effect on our funding this fiscal year. We were informed early in the summer semester that graduate credit levels would be recorded as of Week 3, effective immediately. As we had been working towards the previously established deadline of Week 7 to get all our students registered, and as we were notified too late to make the earlier deadline for the summer, we “lost” the funding for over 200 graduate diploma credits for the summer semester—this, in effect, cost the Faculty over $16,000 in lost premium fees.

250.00

200.00

150.00 Amt to Univ Amt to Fac 100.00 Est "Subsidy" or "Base" Amt Amt to FP

50.00

0.00 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

In 2005, the MEd EP was approved. (It should be noted that because of the uncertainty of approval of the MEd EP, no additional funds were received in the 2005/06 fiscal year so all the costs associated with its inception were absorbed by Field Programs out of some remaining carry forward from its cost-recovery days.) The fee structure for the MEd EP is also based on a premium fee plus base formula and again the base amount has been reduced during the last two years. Because the fees for the MEd EP are substantially higher than for the Graduate Diploma, funding has been sufficient to cover operational costs. However, Field Programs has been relying on the generous funding for the MEd EP to subsidize costs for the Graduate Diploma in Education, which, although categorized by the University as a “premium fee” program, does not actually charge “premium” fees.

2,500.00

2,000.00

1,500.00 Amt to Univ Amt to Fac 1,000.00 Est "Base" Amt Amt to FP 500.00

0.00 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Undergraduate fees received are included in budget based on forecasts. We recently discovered that we have to wait three years to receive the funds for any additional credits over those forecast. As our undergraduate

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 118 credits are minimal, this is not a huge concern at the moment, but it does mean that funding levels are not adequate for us to be able to offer independent undergraduate courses. We can only do so if we are working in partnership with other organizations where they will absorb instructional costs.

500

450

400

350

300

250 Amt to Univ 200 Amt to FP

150

100

50

0 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

6.2.9. UNDERGRAD PROGRAMS

Until the summer of 2000, Field Programs offered undergraduate courses and Post Baccalaureate Diplomas (PBDs) in collaboration with BC school districts. PBDs were not offered after the summer of 2000, with the last students finishing in 2002. One PBD has been offered since 2000—a Montessori program designed in collaboration with Vancouver Training Institute for Montessori teachers in the Vancouver School District.

Other individual undergraduate courses have been offered in collaboration with the following organizations (further details regarding these offerings appear in Section 12): —Provincial Integration Support Program (PISP) —Provincial Outreach Program for Autism and Related Disorders (POPARD) —Mining Association of British Columbia

In addition, some teachers have taken Graduate Diploma courses for undergraduate credit in order to complete their BGS degree.

6.2.10. GRADUATE PROGRAMS

GRADUATE DIPLOMAS Each graduate diploma program develops specific learning goals related to its theme. These are referred to in our programs as “capacities.” These include common capacities shared across all graduate diploma programs: reflection, critical thinking, collaboration, ethics and inquiry (see Section 6). These capacities are used as a framework for program planning of both content and process throughout each diploma, and are also the points of reference for ongoing student self-assessment and distributed assessment throughout each program. These capacities also create a common curriculum as different topics are explored and taught by various members of each instructional team.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 119 Teachers in graduate diplomas engage in action research or teacher inquiry projects, which are usually inspired by immediate concerns within their practice and current educational research or theory. Teachers in our programs are uniquely engaged in an integration of theory and practice.

Student issues at the moment include: increasing tuition fees, increased automated services and decreased human contact, and difficulties in withdrawing from a mandatory Grad Student health plan. All of our students are off-campus, so they view fees for university services they cannot use as unnecessary. Due to fiscal restraints, a future concern will be availability and access to Graduate Diploma programs. Strong, suitable applicants may be forced to wait, or be turned away from programs, due to the limits on program capacity.

All of our programs are initiated in response to identified professional needs and interests within each particular school district. Our program participants represent a wide diversity of teaching experience, ethnicity, and gender. We would like to extend our programs to paraprofessionals working within schools however SFU admission policies have prevented us from successfully accrediting these students.

Our students are very well supported, through office staff who are consistently available to personally assist students with any administrative issues. In addition a Faculty Associate has a direct and continuous personal relationship with each cohort. We also have a website to support our graduate students which is soon to be updated.

Field Programs’ offerings are unique in the province. Our programs offer graduate credit for professionally relevant, practice-based learning for teachers. Teachers engage in self-directed and self-designed research projects but are supported throughout their learning through relationships with mentors, Faculty Associates, Faculty members and cohort colleagues.

There are practices in other universities that we would like to emulate. We would like to publish the results and findings of our students’ research projects, in a relevant electronic or print format, such as recently piloted at UBC. We would also like to generate and publish our own research.

Our programs are designed to value and support practicing teachers. Our goal is to help teachers become teacher-researchers. What we notice is that many of our graduates move into positions of leadership within their communities of practice. In our experience, teachers leave our programs with a heightened sense of agency and increased capacity to respond to the multiple demands of teaching life.

MASTER OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE (MED EP) The learning goals in the MEd EP are to deepen and broaden students’ understandings of their practice that developed in their diploma programs, which will enhance their identity as ‘teacher-researchers.’ Since the MEd EP ‘ladders’ from our diplomas, at this time we are discussing within FP the best ways to develop and scaffold this.

We are engaged in an ongoing examination of the degree of consistency within the various iterations of the MEd EP, given the various specialties and kinds of expertise in the different instructional teams that work in the program. We are identifying “core” curriculum, readings, and activities that might best accomplish this.

At this time, the program appears to be appropriately targeted to student demand, but in fact, we are in the enviable but difficult situation of having more students interested in the program than we can adequately accommodate at any one time. Certainly with respect to ‘equity-designated’ groups, we have no restrictions that would hinder entry other than the academic and programmatic application criteria, and we actively encourage diversity in our cohorts, which befits our mission and vision for the program to provide quality educational opportunities for teachers in the province.

Our programs’ strengths in lie primarily in our intention and capacity to create an educational space within a community context (the cohort) that actively supports the aims and journeys of the students. More

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 120 specifically, we deliver these programs in locations (e.g. in the school districts themselves) and at times (e.g. evenings and weekends) which enable teachers and other educational professionals to pursue a graduate degree that fits with their working and life schedules.

Since this is a ‘professional’ program, it is primarily intended to provide an opportunity for teachers to deepen and broaden their understandings of their practice, so as to become more fully and critically engaged in their schools and classrooms as ‘teacher-researchers.’ It is not, therefore, designed to be a platform for academic positions per se. It is, however, designed to enable them to pursue and to be considered for certain kinds of career-development opportunities, and to take on various enhanced positions within the school system (e.g. department headships, school or district administration and leadership, curriculum development and leadership, policy and planning, etc.). However, it should be added, it would not at all be beyond the pale for our students to entertain the possibility of doing doctoral work in the form of Ph. D. or Ed. D. studies, and so, may in time prepare participants for academic positions. Furthermore, it is our hope and our belief that our program helps teachers to become leaders, which may be made manifest in both formal (e.g. career positions in an institution) and informal (e.g. catalysts for change in a classroom) ways.

6.2.11. WORK ENVIRONMENT/COLLEGIALITY

Field Programs operates as a cohesive and collegial unit. Weekly program meetings are held where program planning, operational reviews and specific issues are discussed. The chair is rotated at these meetings to encourage a collaborative element to our leadership. In addition, staff meetings are held every two weeks, which include all Field Programs staff and offer opportunities for general discussion about admissions, registrations and any topic of importance. At one meeting each week, a time is set aside for sharing celebrations—both personal and family as well as those related to our programs. The office staff also meet bi-weekly, giving an opportunity for discussion of topics and concerns that relate specifically to them. Faculty Associates or others are invited to give presentations to this group to widen their understanding of our programs, student experiences, or for general professional development purposes. In order to foster the team environment, we hold regular “Fun for us” events, which support a close sense of community.

Faculty Associates naturally develop strong bonds with the instructional teams and students in their own Graduate Diploma programs. They usually teach the first course of each program and set up and train the instructional teams. They provide continuity by visiting classes regularly throughout the program (or in the case of TLITE, organize and attend special meeting days), attending summer institutes and participating in final portfolio demonstrations/assessments at the end of each program. Improving the efficiency of communication between our office staff and off-site students and instructional teams (particularly mentors), has been a high priority. Because all program instruction takes place off campus, telephone and fax communications have traditionally been used to disseminate information. However, we have also been establishing a system of e-mail list-serves to improve distribution of general information. In addition, there is some opportunity for staff to meet students: they are encouraged to attend final demonstrations, participate in convocation when many students come to campus and occasionally attend summer institutes to deal with registration inquiries. Staff are also in contact with mentors when there are on-campus planning meetings, or at our mentor conference. Opportunities are limited for face-to-face contact, however, due to the demands of their duties on campus. Despite this, the relationship between our staff, students and mentors is extremely good.

Two main concerns that have been unsettling for our unit for some time have been the unstable funding situation (discussed in Section 8) and the uncertainty regarding office space. Due to the high demand of premium office space, we are never quite sure how long we will have a stable workspace. For example, in the midst of a major renovation/reorganization a year ago, we were informed that we would have to move out of two of our offices so they could be made into faculty offices. This resulted in five members of the team eventually being relocated in another hallway, which has been a challenge to the collegial manner in which we work.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 121 Overall, though, we work in a very positive environment. Issues are raised and dealt with as quickly and as effectively as possible, and the team atmosphere enables us overcome challenges in a creative and collaborative way. The sudden change in directorship that occurred recently has also been a positive experience, giving opportunity for fresh insight into some of our processes and new leadership in planning and goal setting.

6.2.12. INTERNAL/EXTERNAL ALLIANCES/PARTNERSHIPS/COLLABORATIONS

INTERNAL CURRENT/ONGOING Field Programs has developed a wide range of alliances, partnerships and collaborations both within the university community as well as with external partners.

Field Programs has been working in collaboration with the Faculty’s Professional Development Programs to give priority to Graduate Diploma students who wish to become school associates and work with student teachers. Given our connection with the field, we have also assisted in identifying School Associates for student teacher placements.

Field Programs has also been collaborating with Undergraduate Programs (UGP) as it concerns undergrad students in our PBD and Graduate Diploma programs. Field Programs faculty and staff work closely with UGP staff to ensure that students meet the requirements for completion and qualification.

In 2003, a five-year proposal was developed regarding SFU establishing a BC site for Francophone development. The Federal Government approved this proposal in 2004 and subsequently the BAFF/OFFA office was established as a joint initiative with the Faculty of Arts. Field Programs has offered four Graduate Diplomas, with funding assistance from the BAFF/OFFA office: two FSL programs (Surrey and Richmond School Districts), a Diversity program (in collaboration with Conseil Scolaire Francophone- CSF), and a Literacy program (in collaboration with the Comox Valley School District). Plans are underway to begin a second Diversity program this summer. In addition, with funding from the BAFF/OFFA office, Field Programs has offered several non-credit workshops series focusing on Second Language and Immersion education issues. These workshops have been held across the Lower Mainland, on Vancouver Island (Campbell River, Courtenay/Comox), in Northern BC (Prince George), and in the Kootenays (Nelson).

In addition, Field Programs continuously liaises with Graduate Programs regarding matters of administrative and programmatic concerns with both the Graduate Diploma and the MEd EP. Procedures and policies are developed and reviewed on an ongoing basis. Of note is the current work that Field Programs has undertaken in revising and defining admissions guidelines and selection criteria for the MEd EP.

Our partnership with the Faculty of Education’s International Programs is highlighted in Section 13.

PAST In 2003, Field Programs provided instructional staff to assist in the Developmental Standard Term Certificate in First Nations Language and Culture. This was a joint project with The Stó:lõ Nation and the FOE Undergraduate Programs.

In 2003, in collaboration with Graduate Programs, Field Programs ran a pilot program to assist students in preparing for admission into the Community Based MEd program in Indigenous Education. Many of the students involved in the bridging program were non-traditional students, that is students without a Bachelor degree.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 122 EXTERNAL CURRENT/ONGOING Field Programs is approached regularly by other institutions wishing to collaborate on program development and delivery, and by school districts seeking in-depth professional development opportunities for their staffs. All of our initiatives are developed in response to requests from faculty or field-based educators or agencies, and involve collaborative planning and implementation. Listed below are examples of such initiatives.

The collaborations of most importance are those with our school district partners across the province. In the past few years, Graduate Diploma programs have expanded significantly within the Lower Mainland as well as outside the regional area to locations such as Prince George, Salmon Arm, Terrace and the BC Northwest, Nanaimo, and the North West Territories.

In 2003, Field Programs began a liaison with the First Nations Education Steering Committee (FNESC) to assist students working in First Nations schools with funding for their course fees for both the Graduate Diploma and UCC LEFA Certificate (see below).

In 2004, Field Programs entered into an agreement with the University College of the Cariboo (now Thompson Rivers University), which allowed aboriginal support workers to have their non-credit work in Field Programs’ Supporting Diverse Learners Graduate Diplomas transferred for credit into UCC’s Learning Facilitators Certificate Program. The support workers were able to work alongside their teacher colleagues in cohorts held in the Terrace, Prince George, Salmon Arm and Nanaimo areas. Many of these students were also funded by FNESC. Eighteen students successfully completed their LEFA program. The program is being continued in two further Supporting Diverse Learners programs held in Fort Ware beginning in 2006 (9 students) and 2007 (2 students).

Other projects in which Field Programs has played a major developmental role include:

 The Lower Mainland Languages Consortium – The Lower Mainland Languages Consortium is comprised of second language education leaders from school districts in Greater Vancouver and the Fraser Valley. The Consortium members hold various leadership roles in their home districts, and all have the common goal of supporting and encouraging French Immersion, Core French and Modern Language education. A Field Programs Faculty Associate chairs regular meetings for the group, and provides support for electronic communication for Consortium members. The Lower Mainland Languages Consortium regularly collaborates to provide shared in-service opportunities for teachers of second languages.  The Early Literacy Network - Field Programs supported the creation and continuation of this network from 1994 to 2007. This group of educators from around the province share common goals and concerns, and action planning in the area of children’s literacy in BC schools. This past year, the network has become a self-supporting body, although a Field programs Faculty Associate continues to attend regular meetings and provides support for electronic communication for network members.  The Adolescent Literacy Network – The Adolescent Literacy Network is a grassroots organization of literacy coordinators and mentors from a number of school districts in BC. The group meets to share concerns, strategies and resources. A notable ALN project was the creation and implementation of a non- credit mini-course on assessment for secondary teachers called Assessment That Matters: Making it Real, which ran January to June 2006. Historically, SFU’s contribution to the ALN took the shape of providing a faculty associate or coordinator to chair the meetings and a secretary to provide administration support (e.g. manage accounts, take the minutes and update the website, etc). These services were funded through proceeds from an annual literacy conference jointly organized with the Early Literacy Network. In recent years, however, the professional development needs addressed by this conference appear to be met within the school districts, and conference attendance has dwindled. The ALN has consequently agreed to function without the website or accounting support and has become a fully independent entity. Field Programs involvement continues through the participation of faculty associates.

Field Programs connection with each of these groups has resulted in the development of several graduate diplomas.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 123 PAST From 2000-2003, with funding from the Ministry of Education, Field Programs coordinated a network French Language Social Studies Educators on behalf of the Lower Mainland Languages Consortium. This partnership was made up of representatives from 14 lower mainland school districts, the Conseil Francophone, and the FOE. The project also had the support of the French programs unit of the British Columbia Teachers Associate (BCTF).

In 2001, Field Programs coordinated the development of the Performance Standards – Writing (les normes de performance en écriture) for Early French Immersion programs.

From 2001-04, Field Programs offered a ten-day intensive summer institute on Mineral Resources Development, in collaboration with the Mining Association of British Columbia. This undergraduate course was designed for experienced teachers whose primary focus was classroom-based educational practice. It was cross-listed as a credit offering by both Field Programs at SFU and Continuing Professional Education at UBC and could be taken for either credit or non-credit in each of the four years.

Field Programs participated in the Metro Aboriginal Early and Later Literacy pilot projects from 2001-2004, which aimed to improve success for aboriginal students using instructional practices and other supportive interventions. The project was based on a literacy team approach, which brought classroom teachers, aboriginal education assistants, resource teachers and administrators together with students, families and communities to foster literacy success.

In 2003, Field Programs began collaborating with the Vancouver School Board and the Vancouver Training Institute for the purpose of offering a Post Baccalaureate Diploma program with emphasis on Montessori educational principles and practices. Nineteen students took various courses during the following three years, with ten of them completing their PBD.

Since 2004, Field Programs has worked in collaboration with the Provincial Outreach Program for Autism and Related Disorders (POPARD) and Provincial Integration Support Program (PISP) organizations to offer undergraduate courses for experienced educators who want to learn more about how to work effectively with students having autism spectrum disorders. Fifty-two students have taken 14 course offerings so far over the past three and a half years.

Together with the Vancouver School District, Field Programs published a book in the spring of 2006, Voices of teaching, voices of learning, which includes “literacy memoirs” and essays from students enrolled in the graduate diploma program, Literacy in the City, edited by Alison Davies (Inservice Faculty Associate) and the three mentors in the program.

6.2.13. INTERNATIONALIZATION

Since the last external review, Field Programs has been involved in the following international projects:

From 1999 to 2003, Field Programs worked in collaboration with the Faculty’s International Programs area to offer a professional development program for teachers from Greenland, funded by the Greenland Ministry of Education. During that time, four groups of teachers worked with FOE instructional staff both in Greenland and in Canada. The duration of each cohort program was one year.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 124 In 2005, Field Programs attended discussions with visitors from Mexico, the Faculty’s International Programs area and PDP representatives regarding the possibility of offering in-service education in Mexico. Meetings took place in Vancouver and Mexico.

In 2002-2003 Field Programs and the Faculty’s International Programs area submitted a proposal to the Jamaica government to run a program in administration/leadership for 800 Jamaican school principals to be held at both SFU and Sam Sharpe Teachers College in Montego Bay. Unfortunately, although we were informed that our proposal was superior to other submissions, another proposal was accepted due to budget considerations.

At present, Field Programs is not anticipating any new international projects, although we maintain communication with the FOE International Programs with the aim of participating in any new initiative that pertains to in-service teacher education.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 125 7. The Construction Zone: Scholarship, Research and Development in Education

7.1 Building Capacity, Achieving Excellence

Research Program and Agenda

The Faculty of Education is committed both to expanding its high quality research and to integrating research into its programs and services. The Faculty’s recent success in attracting large grants has brought much attention to our unit and to its members. To obtain an objective picture and constructive critique of our strengths and weaknesses in research, in Spring 2007, we commissioned an external review of its research activity and capacity. While we provide here a picture of research activities since the last university-mandated full external review of the Faculty in 2001, discussion of strengths, weaknesses, and planned or in-progress initiatives focuses on the outcomes of the March 2007 Evaluator’s Report on Research Productivity (hereafter, the Report; appended).

As noted in the Report, our strengths in research include:  Two Tier I Canada Research Chairs. Egan and Winne each head research clusters that have jointly brought in more than $7.5 million in external funding.  Diversity of research interests representing the breadth of contemporary educational research.  Effective integration of graduate students in research, as evidenced by frequent opportunities for graduate students to co-publish with faculty.  A commitment to research excellence.

As noted in the Report, areas of concern include:  Need for succession planning given the skewed distribution of Faculty across age and rank.  Faculty workload in teaching and administration, especially at the pre-tenure and newly-tenured levels.  Faculty supervision roles in a rapidly-grown EdD program.  Lack of research support, including valuing of diverse methods and disciplines; access to methodological expertise; administrative, clerical, technical, and professional expertise; and mechanisms for communicating research activity internally.  Need for increased integration between research and practice and across disciplines.  Need to diversify sources of research funding.

Particular areas highlighted in the Report and steps taken since March 2007 that merit continuing attention include the following:  We have established an Educational Research Office staffed with a Research Coordinator (1 course release) and 1.1 FTE Grants Facilitators (GFs). The GFs are currently meeting with faculty members to develop detailed profiles of accomplishments and needs. Other services (e.g., budget administration, technical support) are distributed throughout the Faculty or yet to be realized in a framework of budgetary constraint.  The terms of reference of the Faculty Research Opportunities Committee (ROC) have been reframed. Chaired by the Dean, the ROC also has ties to the Faculty Executive Committee. Its visibility and function have been enhanced with the allocation of $150,000 to fund activities that extend and enrich the culture of research in the Faculty. The ROC is also investigating ways to better integrate research and teaching, such as by creating opportunities for students in the Professional Development Program to participate in a range of research-related activities related to their coursework. Further steps are in planning stages.  Funding to attract and support top-tier graduate students is limited. PhD students are automatically eligible for a one-time research stipend of $6240 after coursework is completed, and there are a limited number of competitive Graduate Fellowships available for Masters and PhD students. There is

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 126 no mechanism or funding in place to guarantee continued funding for outstanding applicants. Alternative funding models need to be developed to address this issue.  There is a need for better communication with the University’s central administration about the Faculty’s research activities and accomplishments. Two areas of particular concern are: o SFU’s current Strategic Research Plan presents limited opportunities to align education research with the University’s targeted goals. We are seeking ways to improve understanding of how Education can contribute to the overall research profile of SFU. o Primary research indicators both internal and external to the University do not fully reflect Education’s research productivity and impact. We are seeking ways to enhance reporting of our research productivity.  Insufficient space is an ongoing concern except for three dedicated spaces allocated to Egan’s CRC- and CFI-funded Imaginative Education Research Group, Winne’s CRC- and CFI-funded Learning Kit Lab, and Campbell’s CFI-funded Education Neuroscience Laboratory (ENGRAMMETRON). Despite the University’s new campus in Surrey and new buildings on the Burnaby campus, Education has not benefited from physical growth.  SFU is embarking on major structural changes (involving the dissolution of some existing Faculties and the creation of new Faculties), and Education will have a new Dean in the next academic year. We seek a leader to help steer us through the University’s restructuring, improve our status as a lead educational research unit in Canada, and extend our research image internationally.  Given the diversity of research interests and methods represented throughout the Faculty, increased emphasis needs to be given to defining core research areas while ensuring an inclusive yet focused strategy for advancing research. This is an ongoing issue.

Current Core Research Areas

Our Faculty exemplifies the multidisciplinary nature of the field of education. We have initiated several productive research partnerships and anticipate more.

It is challenging to identify core areas of research given our non-departmental structure and our highly diverse population. Acknowledging this is a cropped picture of our scope, our core research areas include:  Aboriginal education  Art education  Educational technology  Educational psychology  Health education  Imaginative education  Language and literacy education  Mathematics education  Philosophy of education  Teacher education and pedagogy

Research Clusters

In addition to the individual research activities, the Faculty is home to more than a dozen research clusters, centres, and institutes. The existence of these clusters is a testament to the Faculty's ongoing commitment to research as well as its ability to gather resources (money, equipment, and people) necessary to conduct large scale research. Fifty-eight percent of our tenure-track faculty are formally associated one or more of these research groups.

Audio Visual Imaging (AVI) Funding is being sought through the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) program, the British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund, and Simon Fraser University to develop an Audio Video Imaging Research Centre (AVI) to collect naturalistic observations of 3-5 year olds within a model classroom research centre.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 127 This centre is being planned in partnership with the Child Care Society at Simon Fraser University and the UniverCity developers. Funding provided by the CFI will allow researchers, including members of the Institute for Research on Early Education and Child Health (REACH), to use leading edge technology in the form of digital audio video equipment, software, and the build environment necessary to conduct important and timely research into the language and learning processes of young children as they interact with teachers, family members, and peers.

International Centre of Art for Social Change Judith Marcuse Projects and Simon Fraser University (with Continuing Studies and the Faculty of Education) have partnered to establish the International Centre of Art for Social Change (ICASC). The Centre will be a nexus for skills training, professional development, local and international networking, research, and community engagement – all aimed at advancing best practices in the growing field of art for social change.

Centre for Education, Law and Society (CELS) The Centre for Education, Law and Society is an endowed centre, established with funding support from the Law, Real Estate, Notary and Simons Foundations and various law firms. Its mandate is to improve the legal literacy of children and youth through a program of research, teaching, curriculum development, and community initiatives. CELS’ activities primarily focus on the role of law in society and its relationship to citizenship, social values and democracy; issues of social justice, inclusion and human rights; conflict and dispute resolution; and school policies and culture. Currently the endowment stands at $1.4 million., An additional $1.6 million has been received for designated projects since the centre's inception. One of our current projects involves assessing students' and teachers' understanding of human rights, citizenship and rule of law issues, developing cross-curricular resources for the classroom, and providing professional development opportunities for teachers. Another project investigates the extent and impact of cyber-bullying in schools, with a view to fostering "cyber-kindness" and helping schools develop policies that are legally and ethically appropriate. (http://www.cels.sfu.ca)

Centre for the Study of Educational Leadership and Policy (CSELP) The Centre for the Study of Educational Leadership and Policy seeks to facilitate and extend theoretical and applied research into educational leadership and policy by developing long-term collaborative relationships locally within the education system in British Columbia and nationally and internationally with other research institutes and institutions of higher education. CSELP also supports efforts to democratize knowledge through open access and open archives initiatives. As part of its efforts to strengthen the scholarly dialogue in education policy and leadership, CSELP jointly publishes the International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership along with scholars at the Center for Education Policy at George Mason University and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

David Wheeler Institute for Research in Mathematics Education The David Wheeler Institute for Research in Mathematics Education combines and integrates a variety of humanistic and scientific approaches in different areas related to mathematics education. The Institute’s mission is to generate and share knowledge about acquiring mathematical literacy and understanding at all ages and to advance humanity by enriching the lives and options of learners. Current research projects focus on mathematics teacher education in both cognitive and affective domains, on mathematical anxiety, on aesthetics of mathematical experience, and on uses of computer technology that promote learning and teaching. We also have a special interest in advancing knowledge about the learning of mathematics in out- of-school and workplace contexts, and situating this knowledge within the lived experiences of learners. The Institute has received internal start-up funding, and proposals to both the SFU Community Trust Endowment Funds and The Spencer Foundation are forthcoming. The mission of the institute is three-fold: 1) to promote and carry out individual and collaborative programmatic studies of the policies, processes, and practices in teacher education as a way of providing a focus to the research interests of faculty members, graduate students, and field-based educators; 2) to provide a forum for teacher educators (faculty members, graduate students, and field personnel) to discuss research studies, contemporary issues, pressing questions, and

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 128 salient policies in the area of teacher education; and 3) to develop collaborative links with groups within and outside the university community. Four broad research/scholarly activities are based in the Institute for Studies in Teacher Education (ISTE): a) the cross-Canada Major Collaborative Research Initiative (MCRI) looking at the impact of policy on conditions of teaching and learning; b) the re-visioning of PDP into a teacher education program that reflects the state of the art curriculum and makes provision for a concurrent program through direct entry into Education; c) a review of the accreditation of teacher education programs in Ontario carried out by the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT), and d) an investigation of teacher education governance by professional bodies in an era of standards-based reform. To date, ISTE has received about $4 million in external research funding, and has organized many conferences and summer institutes. (http://www.educ.sfu.ca/iste/index.html).

ENGRAM/ME and the ENGRAMMETRON Members of the Educational Neuroscience Group for Research into Affect and Mentation / in Mathematics Education (ENGRAM/ME) believe the time has come for education to inform and be informed by the neurosciences. Dr. Stephen Campbell's new CFI-funded Educational Neuroscience Laboratory (a.k.a. the ENGRAMMETRON) is serving as the central hub for ENGRAM/ME, a SSHRC-funded Strategic Research Cluster. To date, Dr. Campbell has received over $700,000 in funding to establish and develop this initiative, which aims to bridge the gap between education and the neurosciences. ENGRAM/ME currently includes over 40 scholars and researchers from within SFU and beyond. Collaborative projects and pilot studies ranging from metacognition and concept formation to math anxiety and biofeedback using state-of-the-art methods such as electroencephalography (EEG) and eye- tracking are currently underway. (http://www.engrammetron.net/)

Imaginative Education Research Group (IERG) Members of the Imaginative Education Research Group believe that engaging students' imaginations in learning, and teachers' imaginations in teaching is crucial to making knowledge in the curriculum vivid and meaningful to students. IERG's work is dedicated to showing how this can be done routinely in everyday classrooms and at home. In 2006, IERG received SFU's first SSHRC International Opportunity Fund Developmental Grant to help build the International Research Network on Imaginative Education. To date, IERG has received approximately $2.5 million in external research funding, has organized six annual international conferences, and has established a spreading network of associate groups on four continents, in addition to generating a long list of publications. (http://www.ierg.net/)

Institute for Studies in Teacher Education (ISTE) The Institute for Studies in Teacher Education is one of the oldest centres of its kind in Canada, currently leading the Western Canada part of a large $2.5 million Canada-wide longitudinal study of the relationship between policy and conditions of teaching and learning, the first ever MCRI awarded to researchers in Education. (http://www.educ.sfu.ca/iste/index.html)

Institute for Research on Early-Education and Child Health (REACH) The Institute for Research on Early-Education and Child Health is a multidisciplinary research group at SFU whose mission is to generate and share knowledge about child health and early education that will advance humanity by enriching the lives of young children and their families. The institute publishes the journal Child Health and Education. Current research projects focus on young children from infancy to eight years of age and the communities in which they live and grow. To date, this institute has received in excess of $700,000 in funding for their various research projects. (http://www.educ.sfu.ca/reach/)

The Learning Kit Project The Learning Kit Project is expanding R&D in e-learning and the learning sciences by advancing research on self-regulated learning, collaborative learning and co-regulation, metacognition, and study tactics and learning strategies. A key result of this project is advanced software tools that assist learners to study more effectively,

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 129 and to easily and continuously improve skills for life-long learning. To date, this project has received in excess of $5 million in direct and indirect external funding. (http://www.learningkit.sfu.ca/)

Learning for Understanding through Culturally Inclusive Imaginative Development (LUCID) The Learning for Understanding through Culturally Inclusive Imaginative Development project explores the potential of imaginative education to improve academic and other educational outcomes in BC public school districts with high numbers of Aboriginal students. It is funded by a $1 million CURA grant from SSHRC. (http://www.ierg.net/lucid/new/index.html)

Rethinking Teaching in Higher Education / Institute for the Study of Teaching and Learning in the Disciplines The Rethinking Teaching in Higher Education research cluster has received over $330,000 in funding to examine issues pertaining to teaching and learning in higher education. Faculty and graduate students from SFU, McGill and Concordia universities have been team members in various research grants. Funding for a recent project supported the investigation of a 5-day course design workshop for professors across disciplines, with a specific focus on the disciplinary orientations of professors and how this underpins thinking about teaching, learning and teaching actions. ( http://www.sfu.ca/rethinkingteaching/ )

At SFU, a direct spin-off of this research is a proposal for the Institute for the Study of Teaching and Learning in the Disciplines, approved by the SFU Senate in 2007 and scheduled to open in 2008. The mandate of the Institute is to provide SFU faculty with support and resources necessary to investigate questions about teaching and learning of interest to them. This group’s current funds (2006-2009, SSHRC $156,858) support an action research approach to more clearly understand the experiences of doctoral students and faculty supervisors from many disciplines) and how these experiences influence academic success. (http://doc- work.mcgill.ca)

Simulation and Advanced Gaming Environments for Learning (SAGE) The bilingual Simulation and Advanced Gaming Environments for Learning project brings together more than 30 researchers in 12 Canadian universities and more than 30 corporate and public partners, with a focus on new strategies for education and training in the health field. The purpose of SAGE is to explore the potential of games, simulations, and simulation games to support learning in light of new technologies, new media, and our knowledge of cognition and learning processes. The SAGE project is funded by a $3 million INE grant from 2003-2008 and is part of a larger research cluster that has brought almost $4 million in funding to SFU. (http://www.sageforlearning.ca/)

Ongoing Competitive Funding

The faculty has drawn from a large number of competitive external and internal funds since the last external review in 2001. Figure 1 shows fiscal year funding dollars from external and internal awards with outliers removed. The outliers were six large external awards with total funding term amounts of $500,000 or greater; these grants accounted for 53% of available funds. Detailed data on ongoing competitive funding is provided in the Appendix.

Competitive external and internal funding amounts have generally increased since 2001-2002, as funding has been higher overall since the 2005-2006 fiscal year than in years previous.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 130 Figure 1. External/Internal Funding (Awards <$500,000)

$1,600,000 Internal External $1,400,000

$1,200,000

$1,000,000

$800,000

$600,000

$400,000

$200,000

$0 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Data listed are amounts for grants that may have total award terms spanning multiple years (e.g., if a $300,000 grant spans three fiscal years between 2001-2002 to 2003-2004, $100,000 is attributed to each fiscal year).

New Competitive Funding

Data on new competitive awards since 2001 are shown in Figure 2 with outliers removed. Total new awards have generally declined in amount since the 2004-2005 fiscal year. This decrease in amount is likely attributable to the recent influx of junior faculty yet to secure larger competitive awards. To facilitate research and scholarship in their early career, new faculty members receive $30,000 in noncompetitive start-up funds. Detailed data on new competitive funding is provided in the Appendix.

Figure 2. New Competitive Funding (Awards <$500,000)

$1,600,000

$1,400,000

$1,200,000

$1,000,000

$800,000

$600,000

$400,000

$200,000

$0 2001 - 2002 2002 - 2003 2003 - 2004 2004 - 2005 2005 - 2006 2006 - 2007 2007 - 2008

New awards are shown according to the fiscal year in which the funds were first available. The yearly amount includes total awarded amounts for the grants, even if the grants may provide funds for several fiscal years (e.g., a $300,000 grant that pays $100,000 per fiscal year from 2001-2002 to 2003-2004 will be included as $300,000 awarded in 2001- 2002).

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 131 Faculty with Competitive Funding

Despite the a large influx of junior faculty in recent fiscal years, the percentage of faculty members holding competitive funds has remained relatively constant since the 2002-2003 fiscal year. Figure 3 shows the breakdown of competitive funding by external and internal sources. Notably, there is a trend towards more faculty holding external sources of funding. Detailed data on faculty with competitive funding is provided in the Appendix.

Figure 3. Percentage of Eligible Faculty with Competitive Funding

60% External Internal External or Internal 50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 132 Recommendations and Resulting Actions from 2007 External Research Review

The 2001 external review focused mainly on areas other than research. Our primary benchmark for research and scholarship is the March 2007 Report on Research Productivity which made both specific structural recommendations and overarching recommendations.

Structural recommendations included creating the position of Associate Dean of Research, making changes to the governance structure of the Faculty to stimulate and better articulate research activities, creating an external Research Advisory Committee, and expanding support for research projects by hiring additional staff and faculty in particular areas.

The Faculty is addressing recommendations on changes to the governance structure through a review of overall Faculty governance. Notwithstanding, new terms of reference for the Faculty’s Research Opportunities Committee (ROC) have been developed and an Education Research Office (ERO) has been created. The ERO, led by a Research Coordinator (faculty member) and staffed with 1.1 FTE Grants Facilitators, will coordinate with the Faculty’s Associate Director of Communications to improve communication of research activities and with the Advancement Officer to seek synergy in research support. Pending relaxation of current hiring restraints, we anticipate discussion on the possibility of hiring (mid-career) “methods faculty” as recommended in the Report.

In addition to structural recommendations, the Report made recommendations about overarching issues such as the Faculty’s research environment, the transfer of knowledge for maximum impact, and the integration of theory, research, and practice. These observations tie in with larger issues relating to culture and inclusiveness, which were noted in the previous Faculty external review and which form a central part of this self-study. Such issues are ongoing concerns in every faculty of education, and indeed, probably in most units regardless of discipline. There is no “perfect culture” that can ensure every research goal is achieved. In our Faculty, we believe we can improve in this area, and our actions in response to the 2007 Report are first steps towards doing so.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 133 8. Making It Work: Media, Technology, Systems and Networks in the Faculty of Education

The Centre for Educational Technology (CET) is an integral part of the Faculty of Education (FOE) at Simon Fraser University. The CET provides an open and supportive environment designed to encourage the evaluation and use of educational technologies to enhance learning and teaching for all members of our Faculty. It offers instructional training and support in the use of traditional and emerging technologies specifically as they relate to educational issues. The CET also provides a broad range of consulting services and technical support for both local and international initiatives within the Faculty of Education.

The 2006 External Review of the CET found that the centre lacked a clear mandate and recommended one be clarified and communicated to the Faculty. This document is intended to clarify and communicate an educational mandate for the CET. Drawn from a set of ‘self-study’-oriented meetings held in the fall of 2007 by the CET Advisory Committee, what follows details the present constitution and functions of the CET, its challenges at this time, and a proposal for its re-development.

8.1 Revisioning the Center for Educational Technology

Centre for Educational Technology Development Plan

The Centre for Educational Technology (CET) is an integral part of the Faculty of Education (FOE) at Simon Fraser University. The CET provides an open and supportive environment designed to encourage the evaluation and use of educational technologies to enhance learning and teaching for all members of our Faculty. It offers instructional training and support in the use of traditional and emerging technologies specifically as they relate to educational issues. The CET also provides a broad range of consulting services and technical support for both local and international initiatives within the Faculty of Education.

The 2006 External Review of the CET found that the centre lacked a clear mandate and recommended one be clarified and communicated to the Faculty. This document is intended to clarify and communicate an educational mandate for the CET, drawn from a set of ‘self-study’-oriented meetings held in the fall of 2007

The CET focuses on supporting educational uses of traditional and emerging technologies specifically as they relate to educational research, scholarship and pedagogical practice. The CET is integral to pursuing the Faculty’s larger mission of being “a global leader in educational research and a pathfinder in Canada’s teacher education”; 2 to fulfill this role we need to develop a leading edge facility within the Faculty of Education that provides access to media goods and services; develops and supports core information technology systems; and both develops and supports opportunities for educationally sound innovation, research and practice. To that end, the following is proposed:

Proposed Mission Statement:

To develop a leading edge facility within the Faculty of Education that provides effective and equitable access to educational goods and services; develops and supports core information technology systems for faculty operations; and creates opportunities and supports for education technology innovation and research.

Background

2 Faculty of Education Mission statement. http://www.educ.sfu.ca/about_us/vision.html

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 134 . The CET focuses on support in the use of traditional and emerging technologies specifically as they relate to educational issues and pedagogical practices. . The CET is integral in supporting the Faculty’s larger mission of being “a global leader in educational research and a pathfinder in Canada’s teacher education”. . The CET should be understood as not merely as existing in its present physical location. It represents a set of aspirations and functions that support the work of faculty, staff and students wherever they are located. . It is both a physical and virtual entity.

The CET Team

Current Organization Chart

Front counter student temps (Sunita, Chris, Abby)

Note: - Linda Hof (Television Resources Specialist) currently reports to Donalda Meyers (Assistant to the Dean) - David Bell (Lab Instructor) currently reports to the Dean’s Office . Howard Leung, Systems Consultant and Manager. As the CET Systems Consultant and Manager, Howard is largely responsible for strategy, complex network and system tasks, administrative tasks and day- to-day management. He also participates in the CET Advisory Committee meetings, directs ongoing CET projects and supports in staff training and development.

. Derek Warren, Web Coordinator. Derek manages Faculty of Education web servers, coordinates web related development, updates faculty sites, and consults with faculty members in regards to the use of web technology in research.

. Sharon Hu, Web Designer. Sharon works with program units to design and develop web-based projects. She also assists the Web Coordinator in development of the Faculty’s website.

. Therese Weel, Technician. Along with providing technical support to staff, faculty and students, Therese assists in computer laboratory updates, and server administration. Therese has been exploring virtual technology in earnest since 2004. Prior to 2004, she spent 16 years as a business analyst and consultant, implementing systems for government and public utilities. Therese’s research interest is focused on exploring how we use emerging technologies to create value.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 135 . Jeremy Bee, Database Administrator. Jeremy has been a member of the CET since 1989. He develops and maintains Faculty of Education Filemaker Pro databases. In addition, he also provides software/hardware support to the faculty.

. Linda Hof, Television Resources. With over 30 years of experience in the Faculty of Education at SFU, Linda produces television content both on campus, and in schools to support the instructional, conference, and research programs of the Faculty of Education. She is responsible for the acquisition of pre- recorded programs (in conjunction with SFU Library). Linda also facilitates the use of video conferencing as an instructional tool.

. Debbie Wilson, Secretary. Debbie is a long time member of the Faculty of Education. Aside from being the contact person for equipment/video loans, and office supplies, Debbie also processes requests for room bookings and cash sales. Additionally, she conducts tours of the CET for new students/faculty members by demonstrating proper use of equipment.

. David Bell, Senior Lecturer. David has been a senior lecturer working with the CET since 1982. David teaches undergraduate educational technology courses and provides workshops for all members of the faculty.

. Maggie Yeung, Resource Specialist. Maggie is responsible for purchasing supplies that the faculty needs for daily operation. She also coordinates physical space relocations, renovations, and furnishings. With the role of resource specialist in the faculty, Maggie acts as the liaison with facilities and finance.

CET Present Situation

. 2006 External Review of the CET found, as noted above, that the centre lacked a clear mandate and recommended one be clarified and communicated to the Faculty.

. The CET is, at present, in a state that requires a shift in organizational focus and design so that it still is able to deal with traditional activities in a new way while meeting, anticipating, and shaping both responsive and creative media and technologies for education.

Integration and Autonomy . In today’s academic environment the extensive use of information technologies in university settings makes it essential for an organization like the Faculty of Education to have the capability not only integrate its operations with the larger systems run by SFU, but also to have the capacity to operate autonomously where and when necessary in order to be able to deal effectively and proactively with its own particular challenges.

Infrastructure . Infrastructure for success and sustainability is an essential component at both the individual and the organizational levels. This infrastructure can be understood as both horizontally distinct in terms of the different CET sectors, and vertically integrated in terms of oversight and management.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 136 Possible organizational structure for the three proposed sectors:

Sector 1A (Faculty Services – General Service Area)

Faculty Receptionist (Vacant)

Before handing off the general service area to the Dean’s office administration, Howard would need to create systems that can be easily managed by the Dean’s office.

Sector 1B (Faculty Services – General Service Area - Future)

Faculty Receptionist (Vacant)

Sector 2 (Core Systems Development and Support)

Brian Lee (Therese Weel) Computer Technician

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 137 The new position (Systems Administrator), will be assisting the Systems Consultant with some of the daily systems administration tasks and perform server (hardware / software) upgrades. In addition, this person would be assisting with sector 3 which will be administrating file/web/directory/local servers which were educational based (e.g. Firstclass) and research based (e.g. Web servers for research).

Sector 3 (Education, Research, and Innovation)

Howard Leung Systems Consultant

System . This means the systems created for technology use and development within the faculty should incorporate both centripetal and centrifugal elements that are features of the interaction of expert systems and intelligent agents.

Sector Analysis . The present state of operations has developed as a result of both deliberate planning and responses to contingent demands. . This can be seen in the way in which the front desk operation has emerged over the past few years in response to non-CET needs. . The CET’s operation needs to be clearly defined into its three sectors 1. General Service Area (GSA) 2. Core Systems Development and Support (CSDS) 3. Education, Research and Innovation (ERI)

Sector 1 - General Service Area . The present store-front sector of the CET needs to be reconceived as do its products and services, and the relative cost of income from sales, to the cost of store-front-staffing needs to be identified. . This sector should become a FOE service area that incorporates a faculty wide reception and communications role with equipment and tools provision and support. . The costs of the GSA will be covered partly from the CET budget, with faculty wide services costed appropriately. . The provision of services on a cost recovery basis, the purchasing and selling of equipment and supplies, mail and courier services, telephone reception, and conference management services need to be integrated into the new GSA sector in a way that is clearly distinguished from, but fully supportive of, its other sectors, i.e., the CSDS and the ERI. . A leaner operation will create savings that can be used in the other sectors.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 138 Sector 2 - Core Systems Development and Support

Priorities  There is a need for a CSDS sector to provide close and prompt support to the FOE’s administrative and academic systems.  Systems development will include but not be limited to web site development for the faculty (except research purposes), FileMaker Pro solutions development and SIMS report development.  Systems support will include day-to-day computing and information technology operations, network and computing infrastructures, server operation and administration, help desk services, equipment acquisition and tracking, and other related responsibilities.  Resources presently expended in the GSA need to be re- invested in this sector’s priority demands. The FOE, both at Burnaby and Surrey, need to invest adequate resources in technological supports for both immediate communications and information and in planning for long-term sustainability.

Sector 3 - Education, Research and Innovation  The CET’s fundamentally educational purpose and operation, that is its central function, is to support active faculty-led engagement with education-focused research, development and innovation.  The instructional, research and innovation functions of this sector cannot be ‘contracted out’ to other technology-focused sites within or outside the university. It represents a vital sector that must remain as part of the FOE.  This function is intimately connected with, informed and driven by, the intellectual and professional work of our own faculty, faculty associates, and students.  The development of path breaking technology-supported educational research, theory and practice requires working ‘hands’-on’ from the ground up with fellow faculty and students in a fully supported, technologically advanced facility.

Business Plan  The CET is an autonomous/integrated unit, which combines a flexible, innovative and complex infrastructure with a commitment to service, scholarship, research and education.  It needs a business plan that relates the differing sector goals and opportunities with appropriate financial, technological and human resources if it is able to maximize the potential opportunities that exist through the redeployment of existing resources, garnering new sources of revenue and expertise and seeking additional areas of activity.

Opportunities  The major opportunities that exist for the CET emerge out of its position within the Faculty of Education. This means that it must both respond to legitimate demands from the FOE but also be able to proactively create new opportunities for service, teaching and research.  This means acknowledging its main strengths, clearly defining its goals and objectives and the development of a three-year business plan.

CET’s main strengths 1. Physical Location in the Burnaby FOE. 2. Experienced and Expert staff and faculty 3. Commitment to Innovation 4. Financial and political support of Executive 5. Fully integrated into the Three Year Faculty Plan.

Goals & Objectives

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 139 The central goal of the CET is to develop a first class facility within the Faculty of Education that develops and supports core system operation and creates the high level opportunities for teaching innovation and research in the area of educational technology. Three-Year Business Plan This proposal’s business plan is informed and guided by the 2007-2010 3-year plan for the Faculty of Education. Its declared commitment to responsive and innovative scholarship, research, programming and pedagogy undergirds this proposal; our current 3 year plan calls for the CET to “provide an improved set of administrative and technical supports to the faculty” (p.16) which, in the words of our mission statement, “is committed to scholarly excellence, leading edge pedagogy, innovative curriculum…” (p 2)

Financial Plan What is provided below is an attempt to lay out some important issues and questions that could form the basis for the development of a financial plan. This also gives the FOE Executive some indication of the complexity of the problems and the need to allow the committee to continue its work in this area. The need to develop a business plan that defines a financial model, costing assumptions, and reviews yearly expected revenues for the next three years is evident. However, the Committee suggests that an interim proposed budget be developed for 12 months which will then be reviewed so as to measure its success

Very Bare Bones CET Budget

Budget 2008 2009 2010 Educ Faculty Supply Acct 43,572.00 44,443.46 45,331.86 Administration CET 472,570.32 482,021.72 491,662.15

Above are the bare bones of the CET Budget based on 07/08 predictions multiplied by 2% per annum per annum. Providing a more detailed set of budgetary predictions is difficult because of a number of reasons. However, one important note to identify with the current budget is that the Administration CET budget does include salary/wages for CET staff members.

Any major changes to the CET operations will need to be carefully costed out based on the strategy that either savings must be found through efficiencies or additional sources of revenue obtained. These questions will need to be addressed over the next few months as the implications of the plans for reorganization and renewal become clearer.

Implications of Proposed Changes If the proposal contained in this report for the setting up of three distinct sectors, viz. General Service Area (GSA), Core Systems Development and Support (CSDS), Education, Research and Innovation (ERI) is carried out then presumably each will have a budget. There will also be a need for a budget for the management of the overall CET unit. This will require much consultation with staff and faculty as job designations may be changed in order to track the new organization.

Additional Revenue Sources Another important policy question has to do with the setting up of an internal economy between the CET and the FOE, with either a viable fee for service structure or some form of tax on faculty operations that use the services of the CET be set up. The Committee has recognized that at present there is no effective policy in this area and that the costs, both financially and politically, of such a system may not be worth it. Nevertheless, if the CET is to play a more effective role in the life of the FOE then the issue of an internal economy needs to be addressed.

General Service Area If the GSA is organized so as to eliminate the sale of materials to students and such staff who normally carry out those duties re-assigned to be responsible for reception work, then the resources intended to replace the currently vacated desk clerk position could be redeployed to fund a SIMS position that would be part of the CSDS.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 140 Core Systems Development and Support The costs of setting up such a sector have yet to be determined but some investment in equipment and software will presumably be required. Resources could be obtained from the re-assignment of staff from other sectors, but again without a clear statement of the role of the CSDS. The other source of funds could come from payment for work carried out by the CSDS for various units of the FOE. How this would be managed needs to be discussed and a proposal developed.

Education, Research and Innovation This sector also needs to be clearly conceptualized and designed. Resources could come from re-assignment of staff, from general support from the CET administrative budget, form research funding obtained directly by the sector or from revenue obtained as a result of services and support provided to other researchers in the FOE. The question of how to obtain these kinds of funds is a political one. Would they come directly from faculty who have research budgets or from the Dean’s office as part of the funding of service for the FOE generally, or form a combination of both?

CET Management A likely effect of these proposals is that the CET will become a more complex operation to manage. One of the changes will be the setting up and monitoring of separate budgets for the three sectors. However, this does not mean that the CET management will not require a budget, both for its own operations and also for those resources, which are being used in a cross sector manner.

Resource Requirements Technology requirements A key principle is that an ongoing program for the maintenance and renewal of both technology and software applications be initiated. An Information Technology Review Committee, chaired by the Systems Consultant, should be set up and given this task of reviewing on an annual basis the need to invest in new resources in this area. It needs to be able to make recommendations that are based on sound educational principles that also take into account the changing nature of the affordances available. For example, when is it appropriate and prudent to replace videotape technology with digital equipment. Decisions will be based on the question of replacement or renewal.

Another issue would concern the GSA if it gets out of the business of cash transactions for printing and copying what is the best and cheapest card dispensing system.

Personnel requirement A highly trained and appropriately supported staff needs to be recruited and retained to supplement existing personnel. . Financial, distribution, promotion, etc. . External requirements . Products/services/technology required to be obtained outside CET and Faculty . More detailed proposal of organization chart located in the Infrastructure section

Risks & Rewards Risks . The main risk is not renewing the CET so that it can deal with the challenges of the future . This risk will be addressed through the development of a CET renewal plan, the securing of full support political and financial from the faculty and its implementation over the next three years. Rewards . The creation of improved services (computing, network, web development, helpdesk support) and research opportunities (utilization of current technology, development of new innovations.)

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 141 Key Issues . A key decision is to continue this review and to have prepared for the Executive a detailed renewal plan by next March. Only when this has been done in a rigorous and professional manner can the long term need for sustainability and development be clearly understood and acted on.

. The long-term consequences of decision postponement past next spring pertaining to CET renewal are potentially very serious. On one level the future of the FOE is at stake because without having a top notch unit of this kind our ability both to sustain an information technology system that brings the most advanced operating capacity to the administration and leadership of the faculty combined with our need to do path breaking research will be severely impaired.

. Our students, staff and faculty are not receiving the education and support they need regarding efficient and innovative uses of educational technology.

Funding There is a need to undertake a detailed review of the present use of funding for the purpose of making economies in the operating budget and also for making a justified case for increased capital investment.

Immediate Action: (under review) There is an immediate need for a FOE SIMS specialist position (initially full time (6 months) then part-time (to be determined based on needs assessment once the needed modifications have been completed.) The proposal is to delay making the currently vacated front desk clerk position and redeploy resources to support the proposed SIMS position, which in the view of the CET Advisory Committee is a far more urgent and essential service.

A description and rationale for the SIMS Support / Liaison position follows: A major barrier across the Faculty is the continued need for maintaining shadow databases using FileMaker:  Because Education does not have a dedicated SIMS person who can program reports in SIMS to produce the types of reports we need on a continual basis, some (or perhaps most) departments in Education maintain their old databases on FileMaker Pro. Filemaker has been used for many years because it is easy to create and print detailed reports from this program.  Since we are mandated to keep SIMS up to date, and are asked to provide reports on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis (in addition to assundrious other regular reports produced within each department) the result is that our office staff perform the same work twice – entering info into SIMS and into the FileMaker databases.  In at least one department in the Faculty, an external consultant is paid to update databases when necessary and to develop new reports.  It would be helpful if the SIMS team could consult with us as a group, and let us know whether they have the resources to work together to make SIMS a usable database for this Faculty. Having spoken with people in another areas of the University, I know for example that the data entry screens can be improved dramatically with shortcuts and customizations to minimize the time needed to complete regular tasks. Getting the customized screens and reports in place is a time-consuming process, but if the SIMS team understands what is needed, they do a good job of providing it.  The overall benefit to doing this Faculty-wide is that we could standardize our reports, determine what’s really needed, and eliminate redundancy and unnecessary costs. It would also reduce the risk of losing important information that is current stored on a number of shadow databases across the Faculty.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 142 9. FRENCH PROGRAMS IN THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION: ADDRESSING ACTION PLAN ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

Introduction

In April 2004, SFU received a significant grant to create the Office of francophone and Francophile Affairs (OFFA). The Office’s mission is to develop, to coordinate and to promote post-secondary courses and programs in French within faculties at Simon Fraser University. OFFA also organizes cultural activities designed to promote the value of French both on and off campus.

At the Faculty of Education, the OFFA mandate translates in two main objectives: 1) to increase the number of qualified teachers in order to support the growth of French and French Immersion programs in the province. 2) To support the teaching of French in the province through offering Graduate programs in French Education and non-credit workshops to teachers already active in the field. Through OFFA support, French programs in the Faculty of Education (FOE) have developed and expanded in all four sectors of the Faculty: Professional Development Program (PDP), Undergraduate Programs (UP), Graduate Programs (GP) and Field Programs (FP).

9.1 Responding to Teacher Shortage

The French Module of the Professional Development Program has expanded from 32 places in 2003 to 64 places in total since January 2007. The program is offered on both the Burnaby campus (48 places) and the Surrey campus (16 places)

9.2 Meeting Needs: Graduate Programs Developments

To support the professional growth of French teachers across the province, a Master of Education (Curriculum and Instruction) is now offered in French both on the Burnaby campus (M.A. & M. Ed. options) and off- campus (M. Ed.) in locations where there is a demand for the program. So far, two programs have been offered in locations outside Greater Vancouver (Victoria 2004-06 and Kelowna.(2006-08). The French Immersion educational community and the “Conseil scolaire francophone” (school district #93) expressed a need for SFU to create a French language Doctorate program (Ed.D) in Educational Leadership. Responding to this need, a first cohort (16 students) started in January 2007 in a program focusing on Management of Diversity.

9.3 Consolidating Curriculum: Undergraduate Initiatives

Considering French teacher education from a broader perspective, courses in Undergraduqte programs have been created to either invite students to ladder into the PDP French module program (EDUC 380), to support them with specific French language/pedagogy skills while in PDP (EDUC 450) or to perfect their French language skills and teaching ability (Laval option). French module students can also earn a B.Ed as a second degree through a Minor in French Education. As part of this Minor, Designs-for-learning courses are taught in French in the area of Sciences, Social Studies, Mathematics, Core French and French Immersion. Student teachers in all modules of the PDP have been able to register in additional sections of EDUC 480 (DFL Core French); these students have the option to further develop their Core French teaching skills by combining EDUC 480, another methodology course (EDUC 378) with a five-week language institute at Laval University in Quebec City (CMEC Explore bursary program)

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 143 Finally, through a partnership between the Ministry of Education, SFU and UBC, an online course called Gramligne has been designed to address very specific continued development needs of French teachers.

9.4 Reaching Out: Field Programs for French

French teachers wanting to pursue studies at the graduate level can opt for a Graduate Studies Diploma in French language Education. For Immersion and Francophone teachers, a two-year program with a focus on Pedagogical Differentiation is also available. Also, in partnership with school districts and OFFA, Field programs have offered several workshop series in French Education on a non-credit basis. Since 2004, over 400 teachers in about 20 school districts have benefited from these programs.

9.5 “Avec le monde en tête”: International Programs

The Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs has been instrumental in developing a Dual certification program with two universities in France. The program combines a Master 1 program in teaching French as a Second Language in Université François-Rabelais (Tours) or Université du Maine (Le Mans) with the one-year PDP program at SFU. At the end of this course of studies, successful students earn the Master 1 from France and are recommended for BC College of Teachers certification. To foster a sense of community service and intercultural exploration, French module students have an option to do a 4 weeks practicum teaching French as a second language in Cuba. Graduates of PDP French module may also enroll in a post PDP professional practicum in France, Spain or Portugal. This option has been developed through the RESO consortium project (see section 2.1 of the present report, about student mobility, Canada-Europe program, 2004-2007).

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 144 10. Communications and Advancement in the Faculty of Education

10.1 External Communications in the Faculty of Education

OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE The Communications Office was created in 2005 with the primary goal being to increase the profile of the Faculty of Education among University and external audiences, including media, teachers, administrators and education stakeholders, etc. In the past two and a half years, the Communications Office has consisted of an Associate Director of Communications, working closely with the Dean of Education and Director of External Programs and International Initiatives, along with some temporary clerical assistance, with two main streams of action: (1) to disseminate information about the Faculty of Education at SFU to key audiences, (2) build communications tools and capacities to ensure a profile that is clear, consistent, and sustainable in order to have maximum impact.

WHAT WE DO The Communications Office is helping to position the Faculty of Education at SFU as an education leader to a broad external audience. The overall strategic communications approach has been based on one key philosophy: building and increasing an effective profile requires more than just disseminating information about what we do to an audience; our approach is to enhance understanding of who the people are in the Faculty of Education and how what they do is relevant to a student, to a teacher, to a parent, to education stakeholders, and to public education in general.

Specifically, the Communications Office:

 Leads media relations initiatives such as pitching story ideas to target media, coordinating interviews and providing media training to faculty members prior to an interview

 Provides communications consultation to professors and program areas in their promotional efforts

 Seeks to ensure the brand standards of the University are maintained and that a consistent image of the Faculty of Education is presented through print publications

 Produces BC’s only education issues TV program “Your Education Matters”, which debuts a new episode each month that is broadcast on Shaw TV Channel 4, twelve times a month.

SELECTED SUCCESSES The implementation of external communications initiatives, along with consultation with the Director of External Programs and International Initiatives and the Dean of Education, as well as the impressive participation by faculty members has led to several notable successes and milestones:

Media Coverage: In standard industry practice, advertising equivalency is calculated to determine the value of media coverage (interviews by newspaper reporters) if it were paid advertising. Between May 2005 to December 2007, the advertising equivalency of print media coverage* is $938,834 reaching a readership (based on circulation figures) of 4,538,373 readers. This figure does not include the half hour TV program “Your Education Matters” that began to air in January 2008 that is broadcast on Shaw TV 12 times a month reaching 1.3 million viewers each month.

*Advertising equivalency rates can only be obtained for print media coverage because the rates for radio and television changes constantly. Stations do not post rate cards for on air advertising and often the cost is negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 145 Your Education Matters TV Program: The Faculty of Education at SFU produces BC’s only education issues talk show. The feedback from teachers, parents, government officials, and education stakeholders from around the Metro Vancouver area and across BC has been astounding, many indicating that the TV program is meeting a need for meaningful and informative dialogue about education issues. Each month, “Your Education Matters” reaches an estimated 1.3 million Metro Vancouver viewers, making it an innovative and high-impact communications vehicle at a fraction of the cost of paid advertising. The TV program also allows the Faculty of Education to communicate in a controlled and safe approach as it is produced internally. Inherent in this program is the opportunity to profile Faculty members and their work or to raise awareness about an issue related to a particular field of study.

Promotional Materials: In 2007, the Faculty of Education launched a series of promotional materials including a general brochure folder, an SFU Surrey Faculty of Education brochure, a media directory, a “Where In the World is the Faculty of Education map, as well as, research and program area banners. These promotional materials have been used in a variety of ways, as part of a direct mail campaign, as event display materials, as take-away materials, etc. both on and off-campus. The main purpose was to illustrate a consistent standard, image and message regarding the program offerings and academic work in the Faculty of Education at SFU.

Faculty of Education Website: Led by the Communications Office, the Faculty of Education developed its first website strategy in line with the new University brand and with the intent to present more organized content on the Faculty website and to coordinate online efforts. The process involved the organizing of staff involvement and content responsibilities, technical support, internal communications and the development of the Faculty’s first website manual.

Promotions Group: The Promotions Group was established with representatives from each of the five program areas. The purpose was to facilitate internal communications and coordinate promotions efforts among the program areas, a Promotions Group was developed to share information and resources such as promotional materials, promotional opportunities (University and external awards and recognition, etc.). The Communications Office also ensured that the Promotions Group was provided with useful tools (such as design templates for posters and flyers) to support the program areas in promoting a consistent Faculty of Education image while demonstrating the unique qualities of their particular program.

Building Capacity: The Communications Office has done well to not only “get information out about the Faculty of Education”, but to set up the systems and processes, or the “structure” for external communications and been able to involve faculty and staff to participate. For example, a process of sharing news and information on our website through news items helps to facilitate regular and participatory external communications throughout the Faculty. Program areas and faculty members have supplied information about their news and events, which is edited by the Communciations Office for consistent style and posted on the Faculty of Education website’s front page. Links to these news items are sent to target media as story suggestions, as well as, to stay on their radar. The Promotions Group, and at its inception when the Communications Office was involved the Web Editors /Content Managers Group, are two other examples of how organized participation around the Faculty supports and enhances external communications initiatives. In fact, more and more directors, staff members, and faculty members are coming to the Communications Office seeking consultation, materials, etc. for their communication initiatives. This is certainly encouraged and encouraging.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 146 FUTURE PLANS & PROSPECTS Consistent with the Communications Three-Year Plan that was prepared in 2006 (and which was submitted with the Faculty Three-Year Plan to the VP, Academic & Provost), the Communications Office plans to continue to design and implement strategic, proactive, and well-organized external communications initiatives to support Faculty of Education messaging.

To date, efforts have been made to create a consistent and overall Faculty of Education image, and support program areas in their promotional efforts. Moving forward there are intended to be two main streams of action planning and implementation:

 enhance the promotion of our researchers and their academic work to the broader external audience;  enhance and expand the existing communications efforts, materials, and initiatives by developing awareness on a national and international scale.

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT Sometimes the short deadlines that editors and reporters need to meet make it difficult for our faculty members to be interviewed, resulting in some missed opportunities. While that is unfortunately the nature of the beast – the news doesn’t wait and quickly becomes old news – there is an opportunity to enhance pro- active commentary on news issues from our Faculty. This can be done through opinion pieces and authored articles in mainstream media.

Internal communications is an area that needs to be explored given its impact on external communications, namely it affects consistency of messaging and image, as well as, may result in short deadlines and missed opportunities.

While the participation rate of Faculty members has increased, there is still a need to facilitate internal understanding of the value of external communications. It is difficult to illustrate tangible, bottom-line results from communication efforts, but perhaps more can be done to demonstrate the intangible benefits.

10.2 Advancement

The Office of the Dean’s Advancement Officer is responsible for fundraising for the Faculty of Education. Based on Faculty resources dedicated to fundraising, the Office of the Dean’s Advancement Officer’s fundraising target is $500,000 to $1 million per fiscal year. The Office of the Dean’s Advancement Officer will likely meet its target for 2007/08 fiscal year.

The Office of the Dean’s Advancement Officer position is a half-time post held by Tracy London. The Advancement Officer is cross-appointed by University Advancement and the Faculty of Education. She reports to Chris Arnet, Senior Director, Advancement, and Dean Paul Shaker.

The key activities of the Advancement Officer are:  Identification of prospects such as individuals, companies, foundations, governmental bodies and other philanthropic sources of gifts for the Faculty of Education;  Cultivation of the Faculty of Education’s relationship with prospects;  Asking for gifts from prospects; and  Stewardship of the Faculty of Education’s relationship with donors to provide recognition for their gifts, maintain accountability for the proper use and expenditure of gifts, and increase the probability of additional gifts.

The key skills of the Advancement Officer are:  Knowledge and experience in major gift fundraising;

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 147  Highly developed communication and relationship building skills;  Strategic thinking; and  Diplomacy and tact in facilitating relationships between donors or prospects with senior administration and faculty.

The Advancement Officer’s success is contingent on the following conditions:  A supportive Dean who is skillful at collaborating with the Advancement Officer on strategy and fundraising calls;  Supportive faculty and staff who are open to collaboration with the Advancement Officer; and  Sufficient capacity and resources to meet and communicate with prospects and donors. Major gifts fundraising is where the opportunity for success lies, and this requires largely individual relationship cultivation.

Based on the conditions for success, these are the current strengths and weaknesses:

 The current Dean is highly supportive and skillful at collaboration with the Advancement Officer. The Dean’s leadership and interest in fundraising strongly influences the success of the Advancement Officer, and these qualities would be highly desirable in the incoming Dean.

 There are key staff who are highly supportive and collaborative with the Advancement Officer, namely Communications and External Programs. There are also key faculty and associate faculty who are highly motivated and capable in working with the Advancement Officer. Overall, there is a much room for improvement to build the potential for faculty to work with the Advancement Officer. Many faculty misunderstand the role of the Advancement Officer, or have diminished regard for its previous track record.

 The Faculty of Education Advancement Officer has limited capacity to realize the Faculty of Education’s fundraising potential. The Advancement Officer allocates her time and resources to fundraising initiatives of the most immediate high priority, with little capacity to build the essential on- going cultivation and “face to face” meetings with prospects that lead to building a sustainable donor base. Past major gift cultivation has been fragmented or non-functioning. The current Advancement Officer is concerned about being under target in the number of meaningful contacts with prospects and donors due to under capacity.

There is a very strong need to build an individual donor base with major and planned gift capacity, and this is only possible when the fundraiser has the capacity to “get out the door”. The Faculty of Education’s largest gifts ($50,000 to $500,000) have been from individual estates realized through no active cultivation. Canadian education faculties have been gifted multi-million dollar estates. These potential individual major and planned gifts will remain unrealized for the Faculty of Education without administrative support for the Advancement Officer to focus her energies on meeting individuals and other prospects.

Therefore, the Advancement Officer suggests the following recommendations:

 That the incoming Dean be provided with professional development to build knowledge and capacity in major gift fundraising, and to provide formal orientation to this important role e.g. “Fundraising for Deans” offered by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education;

 That consideration be given to the long term consistent efforts required by the Faculty of Education to build a sustainable individual donor base;

 That the strong collaboration between Communications, External Programs, and Advancement continue in the areas of mutual benefit; and

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 148  That the Advancement Officer have administrative support so that she might focus her energies on achieving and raising the Faculty of Education’s fundraising target in “face to face” calls with prospects.

11. Climate and Culture in the Faculty of Education: Then and Now

Self Study Report --- Culture

Statement of Aim:

A central purpose of the external review is to ensure that “The environment is conducive to the attainment of objectives of the Department”. This critical matter of the climate and culture of the Faculty of Education, and the extent to which and ways in which it fosters and enriches teaching, research, scholarship and educational service to our various and diverse communities was taken up as a thematic focus of the previous (2001) self- study. The work done to generate an instrument for collecting information from across the Faculty community for the last review was considerable, and since this is a constant consideration for any self-study process, we decided to re-administer that questionnaire, in order to have a baseline by which to compare FOE climate and culture ‘then and now’. To that end, in Fall 2007, we created an online version of the 2001 questionnaire, and requested all members of the FOE to participate and provide their information and feedback.

In order to make the most of the comparative opportunities afforded by this re-administration, we here replicate the reporting format used in the previous report (which is available in full online at www.educ.sfu.ca/resources) adding comparative data, and supplementary discussion which takes up points of comparison and contrast between the last review and this present one. 3

Accordingly, this report begins the same way as its predecessor, with a brief note on the conceptions of ‘community’ which underpin the inquiry. We quote here from that review’s introductory remarks:

Interpreting culture in terms of a “community of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998), we found the following quote helpful in shaping specific questions to ask colleagues:

A community is a group of people who are socially interdependent, who participate together in discussion and decision-making, and who share certain practices that both define the community and are nurtured by it. Such a community is not quickly formed. It almost always has a history and so it is also a community of memory. (Robert Bellah)

As well, we were informed by the notion of “imagined communities” (Anderson, 1991; Wenger, 1998) which highlights how individuals create images of their world and see connections through time and space by extrapolating from their experience. Thus, we were interested in perceptions of the kind of community this Faculty was/is, and the hopes people have for the future of our community. The information received is organized under the bolded questions below.

Self-Study Report: Culture (2001, p.1)

3 What follows is a fairly loosely strung-together collection of things FOE colleagues and students wrote in response to a set of primarily open-ended questions. Regarded as simply and only an enlarged opportunity to solicit and compile information in a short but productive period of re- consideration and consolidation as we prepare for change, this is to be seen less as a method of ‘data collection’ than as a method of reflexive inquiry. Such an opportunity for consolidation and communication can be only partially, and always unfaithfully, reflected in a text of this kind, so its ‘summary’ can only be read impressionistically, risking considerable interpretive violence, knowingly imposed by the compiler as a means of stringing the parts together. The raw data can be accessed online, inviting different views of the matter. This is one story.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 149 The questionnaire (see Appendix H) was placed online in October 2007 and emails were sent to all members of the FOE community: faculty, staff, graduate students, coordinators, and faculty associates.

In all, (not including undergraduate ‘paper’ responses, see above), 59 questionnaires were returned, with the following distribution (2001 return rates are in square brackets): Faculty=26 [26]; Staff=19 [15]; Graduate Students=5 [4]; Faculty Associates/Coordinators=9 [9]; unspecified=0 [1]. The actual numbers returned, and their distribution across groups, is remarkably similar, which is worth noting in light of the considerable growth of the Faculty of Education since 2001. This may in part be due to a generally lower rate of return for online questionnaires than other forms. This document draws on the anonymous questionnaire results, supplemented by discussions at two Faculty fora, several meetings and the Fall 2007 Faculty retreat.

What kind of a community are we/what kind of a community do we want to be?

1. Have you had opportunities to be part of the community of scholars here? Respondents never seldom sometimes often very often no answer total Staff 5 [ 6] 6 [ 4] 7 [ 0] 1 [ 2] 1 [ 1] [ 2] 20 [15] Faculty 0 [ 1] 3 [ 7] 11 [11] 12 [ 7] 0 [ 0] 26 [26] Grad students 0 [ 1] 0 [ 0] 2 [ 1] 1 [ 2] 2 [ 0] 5 [ 4] FA/Coordinators 0 [ 0] 0 [ 2] 2 [ 2] 7 [ 5] 1 [ 0] 10 [ 9] unknown [ 1] [ 1] TOTAL 5 [ 8] 9 [13] 22 [14] 21 [17] 4 [ 1] [ 2] 61 [55]

As in 2001, “questionnaire results indicated mixed perceptions of community life”, with current tenure-track faculty, numerically, being almost evenly split, 11 finding opportunities to e part of a community of scholars here ‘sometimes’, 12 answering ‘often” and 3 reporting ‘seldom’. By far the majority (23/26) report their work is supported by faculty colleagues, slightly less supported by students, and less again supported by FOE administration “Our administration has done little that provides any meaningful support to me in terms of my research and teaching.” Faculty on the whole feel very well supported by staff. “CUPE and APSA staff are FANTASTIC. Some faculty are exceptionally supportive of my work—research, teaching, and service. Others are indifferent and yet others are hostile in devious ways. I don't expect it to be different—human communities are varied…” Structural issues are identified as a reason why support is not ideal: ...“The frequent turn-around and juggling of staff has been really frustrating in Graduate Programs, Undergraduate Programs, the CET and sometimes the Dean's Office staff.” Isolated comments suggest some experiences of considerable unpleasantness.

As for staff, they report feeling largely well supported by faculty, administration, other staff, and even (about half) by students. Though less than half (8/18) feel part of the larger FOE community , ALL report they feel part of a smaller group within the FOE, and only 2 report feeling ‘isolated’. Says one “There is no time to feel isolated when your time is in constant demand!”, while another feels the FOE has a “supportive, family/team feel, they take care of their team.”

While there are differences across groups, most people in the FOE appear to feel generally well supported, and most feel some degree of membership within the Faculty of Education, seen as a workplace, but less so when the specific question of scholarly community is raised. The absence of regularly scheduled scholarly meetings was noted often, by many.

It’s worth asking whether the CR chair system has consolidated resources such that, while it has enabled focused scholarly attention to be paid to specific well-supported areas, more generalized and widely distributed institutional support for scholarly activities has diminished. Perhaps this concentration is part of the plan.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 150 3. Do you feel:

part of the larger Faculty part of a small group isolated within the Faculty Community within the Faculty Staff 20 [15] 8 [ 9] 19 [14] 2 [ 2] Faculty 26 [26] 16 [ 9] 23 [20] 10 [ 8] Grad students 5 [ 4] 3 [ 1] 3 [ 3] 2 [ 2] FA/Coordinators 10 [ 9] 4 [ 4] 9 [ 6] 1 [ 1] Unknown [ 1] [ 1] [ 1] [ 1] TOTAL 61 [55] 31 [24] 54 [44] 15 [14]

Several people said they created their own communities, and IERG was appreciated by respondents for its scholarly community building. Noted also are the talks given by visiting external examiners, and occasional events such as symposia and workshops organized and conducted by faculty colleagues.

One faculty member remarked that it can be difficult to build much intellectual community within the faculty when “there is so much to do that the opportunities to connect about research happen most often at conferences or with colleagues outside of the university…”.

As previously, despite a mention here and there that “in some ways” they felt they’d had opportunities of that kind, no-one commented that they felt there was a faculty-wide community of scholars. “Is there a community of scholars here? I am not aware if there is one...”. More generally, beyond scholarly communities, the majority (16/26) reported they do feel part of the larger faculty community, with 23/26 reporting membership in a smaller group within the FOE. Interestingly, however, 10/24 reported they feel ‘isolated’ within the faculty, with one explaining “I feel that I both belong and am isolated within the faculty at the same time. It depends on the situation or who is involved in any given group.” Departmental structure is invoked as a possible way to improve community: “We should have departments or some other formally established substructure. The idea that it is possible to have an intimate community of 60+ mutually supporting scholars is the problem. Social capital, meaning the wealth of effort extended to others with whom we have frequent reciprocal relationships, blooms in small to mid-sized groups but atrophies in large groups.” And, expressing additional support for departmentalization: “Despite our Faculty's lip service to honoring diversity and oft-heard claims that not having departments is a boon, I find (a) there is prejudice regarding fields of research and methods for doing research, and (b) so little cross-discipline collaboration relative to what is observed in departmental structures as to render silly the view that not having departments is a boon.”

Others, naturally enough, find their significant community relationships less within disciplines than within shared work, collective everyday activity: “Faculty members in my program area are my closest colleagues - we worked together in developing courses, coordinating teaching schedules, and working out other program concerns.”

There are FOE colleagues in its wider community who express an interest in, but not much access to, membership in a community of scholars. “I would enjoy participating in something like that.”, says one staff member, and another reminds that “There are several staff with academic backgrounds who could be invited to participate in scholarly activities.” Faculty associates and coordinators, interestingly, report a stronger feeling of scholarly community than faculty or staff, ( “The community of FAs in Field Programs shows a strong sense of community and dialogue about our work.”), feel generally well supported, with coordinators reporting more administrative support, and both groups, again, finding a stronger sense of membership within FOE subgroups than in the larger faculty community. 2 reported feeling ‘isolated’.

It’s worth proposing some discussion of whether supporting a culture and climate of scholarship might best be undertaken within smaller groups, collectively developed and supported by the larger faculty community.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 151 Whether these are best to be disciplinary sub-communities is of course our Faculty’s inherited and ongoing intellectual and practical debate.

The 2008 responses do as a whole convey the impression that social relationships, mutual understanding and general ‘civility’ has improved since the 2001 review. Although there appear a few individually rather strong comments addressed to these issues, senior administration and faculty alike being mentioned more than once as ‘disrespectful’, on the whole there appears to be considerable understanding and appreciation that people are doing their best, and are generally really quite respectful and decent to one another. There was an expression of troubling division between ‘new’ and ‘old’ faculty: one respondent wrote that “I feel a growing divide and accompanying resentment between junior faculty and the ways I've witnessed and myself experienced senior tenured faculty talking about us. It is not uncommon to hear senior faculty say of pre- tenure faculty that we want our hands held or that we are all (implied blindly) supporting the Dean. And that we ought to listen more than speak.” In a faculty largely lacking a ‘mid-range’ of associate professors, some polarization between ‘senior’ and ‘junior’ scholars is to be expected, which is all the more reason actively to seek out ways of building ‘bridges’ which can help bring the ‘generations’ more pleasantly and productively together, and doing this directly through shared scholarly events and activities certainly, is what these comments seem to suggest as a first and best route.

Civility is a rather ‘thin’ virtue, of course, with its own distinctive threats and harms to communities and climates. One faculty member explains that, “Most people in all roles are friendly, respectful, and professional in their interactions, and I also aim to be this way with others. A few people are rude or short when it is not necessary, and some students inappropriately take advantage of the power they have against faculty members. Overall, however, on a superficial level, most people seem to be supportive of each other.” A new faculty member writes “I would say that "indifferent" describes better my process of settling in. It is not that people are not cordial, professional and respectful; rather, it simply feels that almost nobody really cares if there are some new people who are trying to become worthy members of the community.” What we saw in the previous report was, on the one side, some strongly expressed antagonisms, alongside equally strong exhortations for the faculty to engage itself in collaborative activities and to work strenuously to improve communication. In this review, we see, alongside rather better mutual ‘tolerance’, a corresponding absence of both urgency, and a struggle to find some basis for shared commitment and action. Perhaps we have indeed grown beyond a workable size for such concerns, and such pursuits. What is not at all clear is whether an apparent improvement in ‘civility’ across a larger and more internally diversified group may come at too high a cost. Perhaps we should be arguing among ourselves a bit more as we grow in size and scope and diversity. One faculty member, responding to a question about unmet needs, writes “I would like to see our Faculty spend time thinking about what we want to be, consolidating efforts and bring a more consistent quality to teaching, graduate student supervision and graduate theses. I would feel much more comfortable with some dialogue around these aspects.” There is strong feeling by a minority that a departmentalized structure would help in many ways to improve both community in general, and scholarly community in particular.

The comments over all, and in particular the very hard-to-express ‘tone’ of the extended comments appear to suggest an improvement in conditions with respect to community and climate. Nevertheless it is evident that we have a real need to re-establish faculty wide scholarly events as a step towards stimulating an intellectual environment as supportive as the environment we appear to be sustaining in the FOE as a workplace more generally. This is something we would ‘flag’ for follow up/implementation: IERG and one-off opportunistic talks made possible through fortuitous personal arrangements or external examiner visits cannot bear the full responsibility for creating a stimulating intellectual environment demanded of a rich and varied scholarly community.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 152 6. Have your academic, personal, collegial and/or social needs been met in the faculty?

never seldom sometimes often very often no answer TOTAL Staff 1 [ 0] 2 [ 2] 6 [ 3] 7 [ 7] 2 [ 2] 2 [ 1] 20 [15]

Faculty 0 [ 1] 3 [ 5] 14 [12] 0 [ 6] 1 [ 0] 8 [ 2] 26 [26]

Grad students 0 [ 1] 1 [ 0] 1 [ 1] 1 [ 1] 1 [ 1] 1 [ 0] 5 [ 4]

FA/ 0 [ 0] 0 [ 0] 4 [ 4] 5 [ 3] 1 [ 2] 0 [ 0] 10 [ 9] Coordinators Unknown 0 [ 0] 0 [ 0] 0 [ 1] 0 [ 0] 0 [ 0] 0 [ 0] 0 [ 1] TOTAL 1 [ 2] 6 [ 7] 25 [21] 13 [17] 5 [ 5] 5 [ 3] 61 [55]

In what community practices do we engage/wish to engage?

The fact that it is, in both administrations, smaller sub-groups within the faculty rather than in a large scale community of the faculty as a whole, that MOST people, whether faculty, staff, FAs or students, find their closest and most supportive communities suggests now, as it did to the authors of the prior report, that nurturing a variety of small groups (such as the writing group Lannie Kanevsky has set up, the video research group initiated by Kelleen Toohey, the AWE (‘Academic Women in Education’) group, a small writing group of colleagues from International programs, or the number of smaller research clusters, institutes and centers that have been supported in recent years) could be where we might best continue to invest considerable effort and resources. There is a strong and frequently expressed desire to see the FOE becoming more of a learning community, a less of a delivery center. Says one “…a stronger culture of learning together would be helpful…I really respect a few of the program areas in how they work on research and writing together and do so really well. I think this is difficult.” For this colleague, at any rate, we DO have models, active areas and kinds of scholarly community-based work within the FOE that we can learn from, and attention to these explicitly AS models is something we flag for follow-up.

When the question of ‘scholarly community’ and the general questions about quality and sources of support were asked differently, that is to say, once people were asked questions, not about how supported they felt by this or that group/person, but were asked instead about needs they felt were NOT being met within the FOE, things become even better defined.

For faculty members, there are many specific forms of support identified as weak or lacking, mostly to do with finding ones place, knowing what’s going on, and finding a productive participatory intellectual community. Says this new faculty member: “I don't think that there is an infrastructure in place to make sure that new faculty members are set up to work once they are hired. In my case, it felt like that I fell into a black hole after I accepted the job offer, and was left to my own device to figure out what I needed and how I could get basic stuff to start working.”; Says another, “I would like to have more frequent contact with faculty who have similar scholarly interests and knowledge.”; and another Faculty member adds, “Not enough symposia, brown bags, pub nights”. Its important to note that this same lack of adequate support and information for new faculty, (despite our attempts since then to implement a ‘mentorship’ program) is perceived to persist. New faculty induction needs also to be flagged for follow-up.

Suggestions regarding improved communications included: “Create an electronic, or web-based administrative support structure that provides resources to faculty, administration, staff, and students. Pieces are in place, but large aspects, particularly access to secure communications networks, are missing or under- developed.” Knowledge transfer is clearly something being asked for, and something relatively easy to provide: “With such rapid expansion at this speed - what is the percentage of faculty members who have been here for less than five years???? - it is imperative for the Faculty to set up a system and a procedure

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 153 which specifies what needs to be in place for each incoming faculty members (and staff and graduate student respectively), and which individual is responsible for what specific tasks. A short but comprehensive guide is needed to brief the incoming member and to clarify responsibilities for the existing members of the Faculty.”

“…I have seen some senior faculty directly assist some newer faculty in involving them in larger research projects. I would like to work with a senior person in order to be mentored, but I would be reluctant to approach someone about this (it would be better to be invited, for example)…”

“Establish a more respectful climate for academic exchange across fields of expertise. Bring in more guest speakers. Support faculty members’ research more. Go back to more horizontal relations of governance - including staff.”

The conduct and purpose of Faculty Meetings, it’s suggested, should change: “Ensure that faculty meetings are more than info-reporting. We should sit in some table groups and talk through important issues - not wordsmith documents, or hear superficial factoids that we have in front of us on paper.”

“It would be most helpful if our administration would take its lead from faculty members with respect to issues like how best to support research and teaching. In my opinion, the kind of top-down approach taken … has resulted in many initiatives that do little to meaningfully support us in our work.”

And, as we know, real support for departmentalization as a solution: “Divide the Faculty into departments.”

10. Most organizations are composed of people who hold many different opinions and positions. To what extent are relationships within the Faculty with regard to (difference) (diversity) respectful, dignified and ethical?

not at all somewhat respectful very respectful no answer TOTAL respectful respectful Staff 0 [ 2] 3 [ 4] 11 [ 8] 3 [ 0] 3 [ 1] 20 [15] Faculty 3 [ 2] 10 [10] 9 [ 9] 1 [ 2] 3 [ 3] 26 [26] Grad students 0 [ 1] 2 [ 1] 1 [ 0] 1 [ 2] 1 [ 0] 5 [ 4] FA/Coordinators 0 [ 1] 3 [ 3] 5 [ 5] 1 [ 0] 1 [ 0] 10 [ 9] Unknown 0 [ 0] 0 [ 1] 0 [ 0] 0 [ 0] 0 [ 0] 0 [ 1] TOTAL 3 [ 6] 18 [19] 26 [22] 6 [ 4] 8 [ 4] 61 [55]

One section of the questionnaire asked about the character, function and value of ‘rituals’ within the FOE.

Central rituals in our faculty were said to be Convocation, the Directors’ Festive Lunch (“…the only event which makes me feel like part of community…”) the Faculty Christmas party, Faculty retreats, the ‘Ivans’ awards. Staff commented that few faculty attend convocation, which several regard as a ‘major milestone’ that deserves celebration. “…Rituals as occasions for more time spent ‘face-to-face’ helps team-building, encourages open discussion and helps develop relationships.” One staff member writes “The superb structure of FA Program reflects our core values—allows reflection, ritual, and time to come together to make meaning of our goals and passions.”, and that view is echoed in comments from FAs and coordinators as well. The Directors' lunch at Christmas is commended by many as the main FOE event aimed at community building.

Another’s frustration about one persistent faculty ‘event’ is evident: “Only known rituals: waiting for computer support; asking for computer support from peers or gurus when computer support is inadequate or missing altogether.”

Faculty associates mentioned faculty fora as working to build consensus, share information, and dialogue, singling out for special credit, EWOB (“Education without Borders”, the FOE graduate student-run annual Conference), and regretted that convocation is “a tradition which few of our students attend.”

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 154 The few graduate students who responded did not appear greatly impressed with FOE ‘rituals’: “Welcome orientation, ethics review process, thesis defense, convocation (I assume that last one though I don't know). Values represented?: Get'em in and get'em out.” Another wrote: “We have events and rituals? Really??? We have EWOB every year. That's an event. Grad student driven though.” In 2001, mention was made of a desire for more ‘rituals’ or events, an appreciation of them, and a need to see more formal and informal recognition of accomplishments. What stands out is that the rituals we do have are largely the work of staff, FAs and students, and that none of these, including our major academic ritual, are well attended by faculty. If we can ‘read’ something about the character and condition of a ‘community’ from its celebrations, rituals and events, then the 2007/8 responses might suggest that the FOE, as a community of scholars, is missing some of its featured players. PDP appears to have well-structured and meaningful ways to draw people together, and staff, FAs and students are still very much in the game, but, in some eyes, are the only ones who are keeping it going at all. Hopeful signs are that some of the smaller groupings within the academic faculty might be stepping up to the plate: “Our program area has a semesterly Institute in which all students (master's and doctoral) are involved. As students finish theses, they present this to the larger group. Plans are to have more of this type of thing - presentation of thesis proposals, conference papers, projects from courses, etc. The Institute is meant to be both a scholarly event and a social event and in that way represents our program values.”

As with previous ironic comments about ‘waiting for tech support’ as a ‘ritual’, there were critical comments about Faculty Meetings as being about passivity and listening to foregone conclusions, not encouraging engagement and meaningful participation. A few remarked, cynically, about “Lots of opportunities to eat” but “Not enough celebration of ongoing scholarly life”. Rituals which lack meaning for participants have not much value for communities, and the responses to this question, whatever their (very) different evaluations of particular FOE rituals, speak in common to a desire for meaningful, significant, rich and sincere forms of community interaction, of which academic faculty, in particular, appear to find few instances compelling enough to warrant their participation. Flagged here for follow up beyond the review is the need for faculty members to identify and support meaningful academic occasions for co-engagement, such as the annual event organized by our own graduate students.

What values do members of this community hold? What values should we hold?

Questions about ‘core values’ elicited from 15/22 faculty members’ comments about the difference between ‘officially espoused’ values and those which were ‘really’ operative. For instance, “I think core values are expressed by resource allocation. I think the present admin values the research agenda of the CRCs; media showmanship; superficial expressions of support for First Nations.”; “Marketing, branding and meaningless platitudes seem to be our core values.”; “pretend we are great, hide the fact that we are not”. Individual accomplishment over institutional success, and self-service over service to others were repeated in various ways by many who responded to this question. That a majority refrained from reciting any part of the Faculty’s ‘mission statement’ suggests frustration over perceived discrepancies between ideology and action, and a conviction that we are not, as a faculty, ‘following through’ with what we espouse, that, in one colleagues words, “scholarly values have to some extent been replaced by commercial values”. These responses are clearly intended to be read ‘between the lines’, and as such they testify, not to cynicism, but to values deeply and strongly held, whose perceived failure to be realized evokes, at times, rather bitter expressions of disillusionment.

Responses to this same question in 2001 appear perhaps less cynical, perhaps optimistically clad in the array of superlatives we have come to expect: “freedom, excellence, growth, responsiveness, caring, engagement, service, honesty, collegiality, flexibility, humility, Academic freedom, diversity in pedagogy, curriculum and research…” (p3/4). Between 2001 and 2007 the FOE developed a ‘mission statement’ whose goals enshrine our classroom walls now, so the question of what our core values are has become permanently bifurcated, giving rise, necessarily, to a different ‘discourse’ on ‘values, one far less populated by nouns (“scholarship”, “excellence” and so on, than by verbs. We may perhaps read ‘disillusionment’ as a better-grounded response to the difficulties of DOING what we have at long last begun collectively to formulate in language. So to the same question: what…are the core values of the FOE?, one writes, “Is this a question about what is touted or

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 155 what is operative? For example, we proclaim a desire and a benefit to basing educational practice on research. I see no evidence whatsoever that PDP or our in-service graduate programs pay any attention to research. In fact, when evidence-based information is provided, it seems rejected because it is evidence- based rather than the report of one person's lived experience.”; Having an explicit and official ‘mission statement, then, appears to have shifted the discursive terrain of this question, and “The faculty seems to value individual accomplishment more than institutional success, despite the mission statement…”

Responses by staff, (who do not work in the rooms where the FOE ‘mission statement’ is displayed) very interestingly enough, took the same form in 2007/8 as faculty responses had in the 2001 study: “Research; Teaching, Scholarship and access to Education; Excellence in teaching and research. innovation, research, diversity; Teaching, Leadership and Research; Service, integrity, scholarship (competitive).” though a couple asked “Do they have any?” and another just said “I don’t know.”

If shared values bind us as a community, are there shared core values across the FOE?

“I don't think there are shared core values across program areas - or if there are, I'm not aware of them. PDP and Field programs do share some core values.”

As to what they SHOULD be, one FA said “Inclusiveness. The actual quality of teaching needs to be more highly valued and discussed. Forums for sharing research would also be grand” and this conception of teaching as the core of the work of the FOE was shared through most FAs’ and coordinators’, and staff (and grad students’) responses.

Many concur that ‘core values’ differ between program areas within the faculty: “Undergrad/PDP: examine/reform philosophy of ed, define and support 'good practice'. Graduate programs: research, theory, publication, furthering SFU's reputation in broader academy. Field programs: connecting/offering theory and practice, working in relationship with schools and teachers.”; Graduate programs was uniquely identified as being centered on research and scholarship as opposed to on ‘teaching’, ‘inclusiveness’ and ‘students’. This conceptual demarcation has divisive interpersonal impacts: “…I don't feel faculty members are particularly interested in teachers’ professional concerns.”

What we may have forgotten, and which this self-study reminds us of, is that the FOE is home to two cultures, that always threaten to become twin solitudes in obvious ways. The question is whether and how we might do better to strike up a more meaningful conversation.

As with the 2001 responses, much is clarified by looking at what values people would like to see as “core’ in the FOE”:

For faculty, educational scholarship was primary Research excellence - cooperation, interdisciplinarity, support and community; more much more emphasis on teaching - praxis, reflective, practical”; “A scholarly approach to teaching, research and program development.”; “Research excellence - cooperation, interdisciplinarity, support and community; more much more emphasis on teaching - praxis, reflective, practical.”; “Attention to the various forms of deprivation forced on children in the name of impoverished educational ideas. More self- reflection on the educational ideas we individually hold, and the determination to discover where they come from and how adequate or otherwise they are”

Staff prioritized ‘service to students’ as desired core values of the FOE, saw PDP as the ‘core’ of the FOE, with researchers and practitioners “on a common platform”, and valued inter-institutional sharing. Graduate students stressed connections with communities beyond the university. FAs stressed: “Inclusiveness. The actual quality of teaching needs to be more highly valued and discussed. Forums for sharing research would also be grand.”; “Teaching as the central focus - linking practice and theory, mentoring and scaffolding of teachers AFTER PDP”; “More value placed on excellent teaching in the faculty. More wide-spread interest in connecting research with teachers.”

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 156 One note that sounds consistently is that although it is educational values writ large that bind our communities within the FOE, the divide between educational practice and educational scholarship remains wide. What the ‘centrality of teaching’, the ‘core value’ in PDP and Field programs, means in terms of educational theory and research has not been much interrogated, nor has the ‘centrality of scholarship’, the core value in graduate programs, been much exercised in our professional programs, or so these comments seem to suggest. While this faculty has staunchly defended and maintained its interdisciplinary character, beneath the surface, this longstanding theory/practice division appears to have been relatively under- emphasized, and it does appear that we are a faculty housing a bifurcated culture, a kind of “worlds apart” model of educational theory and educational practice. This we would flag as a priority: to work on the development of bridging discourses and practices which draw more closely together what we do and value in professional programs with what we do and value in academic, and particularly graduate programs, as well as in Faculty research and scholarship. Only in this way can we promote consistency in terms of the quality, breadth and depth of curriculum and pedagogy across ALL our faculty’s programs.

About what rewards are in place/should be in place for community members?

Reward systems, consensus was, really only exist in the FOE for faculty, parties, food, and the Jack Paterson award aside. But not all faculty are particularly driven by these rewards: “? Don't know. Don't really care. Rewards for what? We work in privileged settings for good salaries and benefits. That is our 'reward'.”

Significantly absent from this description of rewards was very much at all about the intrinsic rewards of educational work, rewards of encouraging learners, of social or other non-monetary kinds of ‘good’, or even just the pleasures of working within a supportive, encouraging and enjoyable environment.

For faculty “Rewards for large grants”; “There are many; formal and informal. However this faculty unlike many others, has a strong-top-down ethos replacing a number of collegial practices.”; “My perception is that we are rewarded for scholarship, teaching and service. The reward systems are primarily those managed by the FTP committee.”; “Biannual reviews and money. If you're in the "in" groups, you get mentoring, respect, help with publishing and reviewing, retreats, parties and dinners.” Repeatedly, monetary rewards controlled in rather unsatisfactory ways. What seems worth noting is only a very few responses are descriptive, and most, disparaging. Flagged here is a reconsideration of systems and structures of reward and recognition across the Faculty community. It should be noted that in 2001, this same need was identified.

As to what rewards should be in place, people spoke, as they did in 2001, about how our reward system is oriented to individuals and does not encourage collaborative or community-based work. One colleague wrote that rewards are not terribly discriminating: “…Publishing a cook book receives as much attention as publishing a field-defining essay or experiment.” "Working" at home is as valued as participating in the daily work of the Faculty and the University. Rewards for teaching and work with students were urged, and although most respondents agreed that research is most highly rewarded, others were satisfied that “They allow a wide range of contributions to be recognized in promotion and tenure decisions”. Staff noted that when they are ‘overloaded’ with work, their high productivity is not noticed or rewarded, because what was expected was beyond what could be accomplished, even while performing ‘above and beyond the call of duty’ their work would be seen as inadequate. A faculty associate wrote that “Money for research speaks to the value on research, but also to the 'business' or corporate values. Faculty who bring in research money are esteemed more highly than those who teach with excellence.” It would appear that our reward structure echoes the tension between scholarly and applied work in the FOE.

HOW do FOE values reflect your own?

For faculty: “I worry that we are moving w/a branding/marketing model. I support the sharing of SFU/FOE research with the community "out there" but not "marketing" of FOE.”; “I believe that if we take a scholarly approach to all that we do, this will become known. I do not subscribe to a consumer-customer relationship with students and the community at large.”; “My interest is in teaching and service, and the application of current and existing research, and so my values are less well reflected than the values of faculty interested in conducting new research.”; “Would like more of 'walking the talk; - more support and more innovation and

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 157 cutting edge ideas.”. A number of faculty simply said “they don’t”. Staff responses were divided on this question, and most graduate students and FAs, who had identified “money”, especially research money, as ‘core’ FOE values, did not see consistency with their own values.

What activities should this community engage in so as to improve its cohesion and health? As in the 2001 report, specific suggestions are placed in an appendix to this section. Generally these suggestions, were as follows:

Staff: Communication, community, participation, learning about co-workers at all levels, and inter-departmental collaboration are community-level projects most Staff speak for. Others urge more staffing, and dealing with the problem of ‘temporary’ positions, “We need to work on a sense of community which encompasses all employee groups.”

One good reason why these things matter was voiced by another staff-member: the desire to see ones own work as part of an educational community whose contributions extend BEYOND its own well-being: “I want to see the research/ideas for innovative teaching methods and curriculum reach our children in the public school system.”

Graduate students urged a more ecologically responsible engagement involving ‘green’ retrofit of the facilities, and a community garden, as an educational/research initiative, again as in 2001, deplored an apparent disinterest of faculty with one anothers’ work and ideas, and urged greater public communication and inclusion.

FA’s also urged a community effort to “Improve communication, develop shared core values, build sense of community across program areas”, and expressed particularly succinctly, what might just be the ‘heart of the matter’: “Cross-program research activities would be exciting.” Urged by FA’s as well was a rational reallocation of physical space, based upon actual work requirements taking precedence over formal institutional status.

As for faculty, of 17 responses in 2007, 6 wanted community efforts focused on thinking about and trying to figure out who we are here and what we are doing, on building a public discourse, figuring out how we should grow, and “what matters” in education.

10 recommended greater concentration on one or more aspects of what it is we are as faculty already supposed to be doing: better research, teaching, working more closely with professional and political provincial groups, supporting academic freedom, attending convocation, and actually using research reflexively to inform and guide our own practices as a faculty, across our several program areas. To this same question in 2001, Faculty suggestions had “focused on making community cohesion and health a priority over the next few years, through increased social and academic interactions, increased recognition for various contributions, better communication, attention to administrative structures, and to means to work equitably in the midst of differences….the importance of developing a ‘shared common vision” of pride in one another’s work.” (5)

Its hard not to see an obvious point of convergence among the various resosnes, a way all of these pieces might just fit usefully together: we were to undertake research activities ACROSS the program areas, using research reflexively to guide and evaluate our activities, might we not greatly increase the probability of community members being able to “see the research/ideas for innovative teaching methods and curriculum reach our children in the public school system.” And wouldn’t that be the most appropriate and effective way for us, working together as an educational community, to “Improve communication, develop shared core values, and build sense of community across program areas”?

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 158 As a kind of footnote to this larger discussion, its worth mentioning that, in response to the question “what issues/activities/projects would you like to see program areas work on, there was widespread support for greater integration of theory and practice across program areas, rather than much enthusiasm for specific program area goals. FA’s urged “more collaboration across program areas”. Graduate students wanted “To see the program areas become more involved with each other.” Said another, “Obviously the areas need to be separated for administrative purposes but more of a feeling that the Faculty of Education is actually ONE Faculty rather than a bunch of little departments would be nice.” Staff sought for “Sharing of information”; “more planning and coordination between program areas”; Intermingling at least at the staff level”; “Communication - a 'flattening' of hierarchy in some areas (administratively speaking).”; “Keeping each other and multiple campuses informed with timely and accurate information.”

And Faculty commented that “Areas seem like ghettos”; “We need to improve our programs and support each other and our graduate students to do high quality research.”; “MORE cross program respect and sharing of expertise.”

And one responded, “Since I'm advocating for revising our structure to do away with programs, I refrain from this question.”

How is the culture and environment within the faculty of education conducive to the attainment of its objectives? How has it changed in these regards, so far as we can tell by a re- administration of the same set of questions, since 2001?

Well, we certainly still have people for whom this environment is NOT being supportive: “I am so frustrated and discouraged that I have been telling myself that I do not have the heart to care about the institutional side any more at this stage.” That matters. We also have people with a pretty clear view of what they want from the FOE “I wish we could have a community committed to excellence in teaching, cutting edge scholarship and respect for diversity demonstrated in equitable treatment, in actions, in an action plan that gets implemented.”

The terms of discussion have changed over time, the faculty, which has grown considerably in size, seems generally more supportive and respectful, and the kinds of dissatisfaction and frustrations expressed and probably largely predictable, and certainly entirely within reason. This is by no means a community in crisis, though it is a community with some strong, if divided, views about what needs doing and how that might best be done. But there is evidence of large-scale community ‘development’ across this last review period. Where we earlier sought in largely linguistic terms to describe our ‘common values’, now we chase the gap between principles and practices. We are able to see a pattern, persisting over time, which suggests that a common faculty-wide vision and mission, a common ‘project’ may be less what we are after than finding and making well-supported, smaller communities of practice whether these be disciplinary or practice-based or project- driven, and we see a high degree of consensus about the need for a stronger and more diverse scholarly community, and more generally for the value of improving communication, resources and interaction across program areas, initiating cross-program research, and paying better attention to taking our own research and scholarship seriously enough to support its continuous infusion within and across our variously located domains of educational practice.

This is by no means a definitive account of the “culture and climate’ in the FOE in 2007/8, however it is ONE way of finding and making meaning of what people across this community took the time and trouble to convey for the purpose of this self –study, and as such, it is information which deserves, and will receive, more and better scrutiny as it is shared across the FOE, discussed by faculty, staff and students, and taken up by those with specific questions to pursue. Thanks to current means of data representation, storage and access, the forgoing ‘summary’ remains, appropriately, an ‘open’ text.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 159 12. A Matter of Focus: Developing Focus questions during the FOE Self Study

12.1 A Matter of Focus: Developing “Focus Questions”

From the beginning of the self-study, we used the need to generate a set of “focus questions” to guide the external reviewers as a way for us to focus. Discussions about ‘focus’ were framed in a way which Latour et al (2005) characterize as a shift of attention from matters of value to discernible things, to significant objects, seen as “matters of concern”. By the second of the self-study meetings, working in groups on various aspects of the external review requirements, one group was, accordingly, charged with discussing, and very preliminarily drafting, a set of possible focus questions for the external review team. The following gives a sense of the considerations at that time:

“…we realized that what we really wanted the External Review team to help us with would not be realistic unless we first provided them with specific information to which they could add as they meet and talk with different individuals. So the following are two areas that we think should be part of the self-study:

How can we characterize ourselves as a multi-focal Faculty accurately enough so that this is understandable to individuals within SFU and beyond and that provides a rationale for decisions we make about other aspects of our community (for example, governance structure, space).

-Our group felt that discussions of aspects like governance (or even space) for example, will remain un- resolvable because we have no basis upon which to discuss these aspects except that of individual desires/needs or perspectives. To address this we need to come together and characterize ourselves in a way that is an accurate representation of our current Faculty community as well as what we want to be in the future...

(From recorder’s notes of the ‘focus questions’ discussion group, Dr. Cheryl Amundsen, 10/23/07)

First Steps

The focus questions discussion group, starting from notes of the previous meeting, arrived at the following set of possible focus questions, very much seen by all as in process, and as inviting more and further information and consideration.

Is our characterization of ourselves coherent enough, workable and realistic? In other words, how can the External Review committee help us to articulate the nature of our Faculty/programs so that we can provide an accurate conception of our multi-focal Faculty and so that it provides rationale for other issues at hand (for example, governance structure) Are our current governance structures and procedures the best way to facilitate and support our characterization of ourselves (given, among other aspects, our size and rate of growth)? How are we unique or “normal” as it relates to our issues with communication and community building within our Faculty and as a Faculty of Education within a university? How are we being considered in the University’s space plan? Do we need to represent our needs in a different way so that our usage of space can be accurately understood by those at the institutional level?

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 160 Next Steps…

After discussions by variously constituted groups over two meetings, a set of 7 “matters of concern” was compiled:

Growth: What drives our growth? Why, how and when should the faculty grow? Governance: To what extent is our vision being enacted in and through our governance structure and policies and practices? We need to model what we claim to be (our ‘vision’ statement) Influence of 3 campuses on governance – what's working? Challenges? Democratic decision making: to what extent are decisions made at committee level enacted (or discounted) at the higher level and the impact of this on morale and community. Space Space issues – expansion to 3 campuses and around the province vs. a collective sense of culture/community. How are space decisions made? Principles of Budget Distribution: What are they? Technology Can we have access to equitable and necessary computer/technology we need to do our job? Communications Across sectors, across campuses, From admin to faculty and faculty to staff Curriculum: Integrity, quality, consistency, relevance, worth. What drives curricular decisions? What do we teach and why?

The Program Directors were asked to take this list to their forthcoming program committee meeting, and to consider their own area’s ‘focal’ questions as each program committee drafted their respective sections of this report. Some writing groups chose to do that within their area reports, and some chose to discuss focus questions in a separate document, and their various choices are respected in the way their considerations are presented in this section.

Arrivals and Departures…The FOE Focus Questions

At a meeting of the executive committee, the following were arrived at as the focus questions for the faculty as a whole:

(1) Question #1: How can we as a Faculty ensure coherence and integrity and purposeful direction while responding effectively to the challenges and opportunities involved in working across multiple-sites, and contending with the following specific issues: Communications across campuses Administrative and support staff Space Resources Technology Governance

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 161 Faculty and program locations

(2) Question #2: What has been driving growth in the Faculty of Education (faculty, programs, centers, external sites, international programs, premium fee programs, etc)? Under current conditions of economic constraint, what should now drive our growth and development? How do we consolidate and how do we decide where and what to cut back?

(3) Question 3: As an interdisciplinary faculty seeking to engage responsively to the needs of the diverse communities we serve, how well have we maintained and enhanced the quality of our scholarship, teaching, research and academic programming?

(4) Question #4: How can we, in the future, best respond to these demands while maintaining the character, quality and integrity of of curriculum, pedagogy, research and scholarship that has distinguished our faculty?

‘Focus’ as a noun, and as a verb

This formulation of the FOE focus questions, intended to guide our external reviewers, are for us necessarily, under construction. As well as a ‘focus’ on the ‘answers’ to these specific questions, we are wanting to attend in this self study and what follows it, to the ways in which differently positioned colleagues in the FOE inflect and nuance them, and to pay attention to the different patterns of significance these questions have in specific activities and areas of operation, as it matters greatly to how our ‘official’ statement of FOE focus questions can be interpreted and pursued.

12.2 Field Programs on “Focus Questions”

Question #1

How can we as a Faculty ensure coherence and integrity and purposeful direction while responding effectively to the challenges and opportunities involved in working across multiple sites, while contending with the following specific issues:

• Communications across campuses • Administrative and support staff • Space • Resources • Technology • Governance • Faculty and program locations

Communication

Communication within the Field Programs community is quite good—it used to be excellent but has definitely been hindered by the recent dividing of our office space. On a personal level it is very satisfactory: positive, supportive, and responsive. We also find little difficulty communicating across different campuses, probably because our need to do so is quite limited. There are definite difficulties regarding communication within the Faculty located on Burnaby Mountain. There are no structures for facilitating communication between program areas beyond some administrative issues, and even those are often unsatisfactory. Generally, we feel that there is a definite need for more opportunities for interaction and constructive input into processes and decision-making that affect all of us. Further, regarding research and

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 162 teaching programs, no one knows what anyone else is doing, and it’s not easy to find out. Finally, many of us are not happy with the way Field Programs is perceived by Faculty members who are not involved in this program (which is the majority) and are frustrated by the fact that there is no practical way to address this problem: how do we ensure that other faculty areas clearly understand our work?

Administrative and support staff

Our CUPE members feel strongly that the staff positions are becoming top heavy with administrative positions and that there is a notable lack of opportunity for CUPE members to progress as most new positions are posted as APSA rather than higher grade CUPE. Field Programs faculty associates and co-ordinator could not be happier with the support provided by our own FP administrative and office staff. Beyond that, we have only a casual connection to other faculty areas.

Space

This is a definite concern on a number of levels. Overall, we feel the recent reallocation of office space has been handled very poorly: there was no consultation, no transparency in the process, and it seems to be based on an unjust notion that faculty (many of whom rarely use their offices) deserve the best space while staff who attend daily should make do with inferior spaces. We protest the notion of “faculty-grade” office space altogether: why should the people who work here all day everyday be deprived of windows or adequate ventilation? Many faculty offices sit empty day after day… We protest that the need for new “faculty-grade” space has caused our own workspace to be broken up—a condition that has affected the cohesiveness of our team.

Resources

The recent hiring of many new faculty in the face of current and forecast dropping student population, budget cuts, and lack of space seems inexplicable. Once again it is a case of poor communication regarding the allocation of resources. The general lack of communication in the Faculty also limits our access to a valuable resource: faculty expertise. We would like to develop connections to the Faculty areas that are relevant to our work with teachers in the field. CET is a potentially valuable resource for most of us, but its current state of chaos renders the CET staff largely unavailable to us for anything beyond technical emergencies. We would like to have more educational offerings available. FP staff members would like to have more variety and sophistication in their professional development opportunities. There seems to be a lot of repetition in the offerings; they would like to be able to increase their level of expertise, particularly in relation to software use. Some have asked for hard copies of manuals to be made available.

Technology

We feel we are well equipped for our needs. One suggestion: that new software be chosen for the Faculty based on available support from CET and ACS.

Governance

We are happy with the distribution of power within Field Programs. We feel we each have a voice, we are listened to, and we appreciate the culture of appreciation within which we work. That is not the case outside of FP. Faculty associates, faculty members, and staff feel somewhat isolated. Staff members feel that the Dean is not at all responsive to their concerns: they meet with him once a semester, notes are taken, but nothing ever changes. Suggestion: that minutes of Faculty meetings be circulated to everyone.

Faculty and Program locations

Both faculty associates and students have expressed a desire for more faculty involvement in our programs.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 163 Question #2

What has been driving growth in the Faculty of Education (faculty, programs, centers, external sites, international programs, premium fee programs, etc)? Under current conditions of economic constraint, what should now drive our growth and development? How do we consolidate and how do we decide where and what to cut back?

The question of what has been driving growth in the Faculty is somewhat ambiguous to Field Programs personnel. We wonder what is meant by growth?

 Growth in numbers of students or FTEs?  Growth in depth and breadth and quality of our programming?  Growth in funding and in research?  Growth in the reputation, influence and visibility of SFU’s Faculty of Education both within the SFU community and the educational community within BC and the world?

We agree that all of these kinds of growth have been important to the Faculty and that each kind of growth is given different priority within the Faculty. We’ve seen the recent increase in hiring of faculty and wonder what vision is behind that hiring. We wonder if growth necessarily should mean a growth in size or numbers or prestige. Could growth be in other directions, such as growth in areas which are more in need and less accessible to our programs, or growth in experimental or ‘radical’ approaches to education (for example crosscurricular partnerships), or growth in our teacher-school-university partnerships such as research groups within schools combining practitioner research and academic research?

In Field Programs, growth has taken place in our relationships with school districts, numbers of applicants and enrolled students, variety of programs offered, learning opportunities and experiences for students, expansion of program locations in the province, and the personal and professional growth of those who deliver and participate in our programs. Until now, the rapid growth of our programs, students, and staff has been externally driven, in response to the needs expressed by school districts. We attribute this rapid growth to:

 The way we develop programs. Our programs are created outside of the normal university model. Instead of offering a restricted or prescriptive set of programs, we engage in dialogue with school district representatives and help create a program that builds capacity and pedagogical expertise as identified by the district

 The close relationships of trust we have built with school districts  The successes experienced by our students which have had a very positive impact within school districts and within schools  The unique approach we take in our programs, connecting theory and practice in meaningful ways for teachers and for participating Faculty members.

We feel that our future growth will continue due to these factors. While our growth will likely continue in the areas discussed in the first paragraph, we do not necessarily want to focus on an increase in our number of students. Instead, we will continue and develop our focus on meeting the needs of districts and developing capacity for teachers, particularly in those districts where the infrastructure and relationships have yet to be built. We recognize that our ability to grow further will require us to increase our profile within the Faculty of Education and SFU, gain greater recognition of the achievements of students, faculty, faculty associates, mentors, and instructors in our programs, and have access to more university funding than we have received in the past.

There are a number of ways that we can consolidate including: Partnering with other Faculty of Education program areas to provide programs and share resources. e.g. increased collaboration between IERG and FP, and increased collaborations between OFFA and FP. Some areas of cutbacks/restructuring could include:

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 164  Attracting funding by improving FP’s relationship with senior administration at the University, and gaining recognition for the high quality program delivery and revenues generated through FP §  Exploring alternative funding  Working with other areas of Education and the SIMS team so we can move away from relying on our FP databases and use SIMS to meet our needs for tracking and reporting. An eventual move to SIMS will save Field Programs a lot of money as the University will be responsible for absorbing the costs for upgrades and development, and moving data to another system should SIMS one day become obsolete.

We would urge administration not to cut the number of programs or students, but to restructure funding and staffing of programs. In particular, we would urge administration to consider the long-term effects of cutting programs and reducing the number of students. Our relationships of mutual trust, respect and collaboration built up with school districts over decades would be seriously damaged. The Faculty of Education and indeed SFU’s reputation within the BC community of public education as a flexible, innovative and engaged university would be affected.

Question #3

As an interdisciplinary faculty seeking to engage responsively to the needs of the diverse communities we serve, how well have we maintained and enhanced the quality of our scholarship, teaching, research and academic programming?

 Addressing first the question of whether or not we are responsive to diverse needs we agreed that in Field Programs we keep an orientation to diversity by being responsive to various school districts. Our programs are developed in partnership with each district through dialogue with individuals or groups within the district. While this collaboration is integral to Field Programs work, the Districts we have been historically engaged with are predominantly those Districts that have offered the 5+ salary category (mainly in the lower mainland). Now that the category 5+ is a province-wide salary incentive for all BC teachers, we recognize the opportunity to be more responsive to diverse needs by developing programs in Districts further afield in the province, (such as our involvement in Fort Ware), with differing educational challenges. Programs could also be diversified and enhanced in districts by building relationships with district personnel, through non-credit workshops which are sometimes offered (e.g., French Programs). One example of a working relationship is the Surrey SFU/SD36 liaison, which provides an example of engaging responsively across all program areas.  Field Programs could broaden dialogue and enhance programming through exploring the connections that exist within the different program areas in the Faculty of Education and to interface with other graduate level programs for educators. Field Programs could conduct a needs analysis within diverse communities but this might be costly and might be limited by available resources. The focus of programming and definitions of diversity are often limited to what districts identify as needs. In a few cases, needs are identified through what research has identified as emerging trends and then developing programs based on these, such as the case with the global perspective program, the health program and the initial diversity programs.  The quality of scholarship and research can be maintained through several means. We thought that there was a need for more genuine faculty involvement and interest, which would assist in developing more programs that were guided and informed by research and practice, and not just practice alone. It was perceived by many that Field Programs' work was not highly valued by the rest of the Faculty, which may be a factor in why there are not currently a significant number of faculty working with Field Programs to develop programs. This is not to say that by engaging in responsive programming, there is any risk to the quality and/or integrity of the program as it currently exists. There is a persistent tension between research and practice that is perceived to be pervasive in a lot of the interactions between the Faculty at large. The people in Field Programs want the ability to be creative and to engage in programming that reflects the best of who they are and what they can deliver. Currently, as this question and these questions are framed, they do not feel like they are or can be

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 165 allowed to demonstrate their best practices or creativity in its best form. And some even wondered how or if they were being genuinely asked to engage responsively in the set of questions presented. They wondered if there was an assumption that "maintaining" was good, or that they were maintaining and enhancing the status quo rather than being creative and unique.  The program was able to identify a number of things that are currently going well. The Faculty Associates experience of support in Field Programs is very positive. That Field Programs serves as an extension to the PDP program works well, providing tuition credit certificates to teachers in the field as well as having the SA/FA's in PDP plant good seeds in the education community. It was also noted that Field Program personnel have developed excellent relationships with a number of school districts.

Question #4

How can we, in the future, best respond to these demands (i.e., Questions 1-3) while maintaining the character, quality, and integrity of curriculum, pedagogy, research, and scholarship that has distinguished our faculty?

In order to best respond to these demands, we feel we need to clarify our understanding of processes and relationships in the following three domains:

Within the university

 In order to meet the demands, we need to build in the capacity to deal with the ebbs and flows of programming needs/demands out in the Field, to be allowed to be sensibly and reasonably entrepreneurial (e.g., with respect to workshop and non-credit series), and to build in flexibility and autonomy regarding fees and financing  We need to build a better understanding of the procedures within the university regarding funding and achieve clarity around procedures for additional or increased funding requests. Should we achieve stability in our funding arrangements, Field Programs will then be better able to respond to the needs of the diverse communities that we serve across British Columbia and beyond.

Within the Faculty

 Field Programs would like to clarify for itself how we are perceived within the Faculty. We feel we need to build a better understanding of our work within the Faculty in terms of what we do with regards to curriculum, pedagogy, research and scholarship o We would like to create opportunities for us to contribute to the Faculty, for example, by hosting seminar series, conferences, etc.  We would like to increase the opportunities for Faculty members to be involved in our work (e.g., teaching, research, program development)  We would like to highlight the importance of teaching as scholarship. We are concerned that teaching, research, and scholarship are NOT equally valued or supported in the Faculty, and, in a time of financial restraint, these divisions and gradations of value may be exacerbated  We wonder what is meant by “maintaining the character, quality, and integrity of curriculum, pedagogy, research, and scholarship that has distinguished our faculty.” Does that refer to the current state of the Faculty? Or the historical position of the Faculty as a groundbreaking, radical, pioneering sort of entity? We don’t think those 2 visions are the same.

Within Field Programs

 We are beginning a self-study of our unit with the aims of clarifying our pedagogy and instructional strategies

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 166  We have begun to explore opportunities to research what goes on in our programs so as to examine/maintain/develop further what distinguishes with regard to pedagogy, curriculum, and scholarship  We will continue to clarify our communication and processes vis-à-vis program development within Field Programs o We have a strong and flexible team that gives us the capacity to respond to the diverse needs of our partners in the field (namely, school districts  We believe that maintaining integrity (internal structure) necessitates having a consistent and stable team. In particular, then, we need to have FA’s and Coordinators roles and positions solidified for more than 2 years at a time in order to maintain programmatic, interpersonal, and human resource continuity. The currency of our work is relationships and uncertainties about funding, program offerings and our jobs are not just matters of discomfort but are material detriments to the quality of our work.

In sum, we feel there are several challenges we face in order to adequately meet these demands as described above. And so, we would like to conclude with some questions for consideration. Firstly, how can we respond to the needs of the field, the Faculty, and the university in the face of the financial uncertainties we have been face with? Secondly, in order to meet the current and future demands mentioned above, what is ‘optimal growth’ in light of these fiscal uncertainties? Finally, how does Field Programs fit into the ‘big’ picture of the university and the Faculty of Education?

12.3 International Programs on “Focus Questions”

International programs on “Focus Questions”

Q. How can we as a Faculty ensure coherence and integrity and purposeful direction while responding effectively to the challenges and opportunities involved in working across multiple-sites, and contending with the following specific issues: communications across campuses, administrative and support staff, space, resources, technology, governance, faculty and program locations?

A. For our faculty to ensure coherence, integrity and purposeful direction, a common plan for the faculty must be developed which is based on mutual respect between faculty members and between program/interest areas. This plan must be flexible enough to seize unforeseen opportunities that allow for quality academic scholarship, research, curriculum development and teaching. One of the President’s four pillars is internationalization and the University’s motto is “Thinking of the World”. Thus, International Programs has to be incorporated into this common plan.

The use of a common platform for communications, making appointments, setting up meetings, booking rooms, etc. across the Faculty of Education and across the University would greatly increase the efficiency for the staff handling these tasks.

Space is an ongoing issue for this faculty and especially so at the Burnaby campus. The lack of space is a significant issue for International Programs. International Programs pays overhead to the University and the Dean’s office for some of our cost recovery programs and contracts. This is to compensate the University for the use of campus resources, i.e. space, technology, etc. Although International Programs pays overhead, it is often difficult for us to book appropriate space for these programs. In many cases, International Programs needs to book space at Harbour Centre where we are charged significant rental fees. In effect, International Programs is paying twice for space. This is an administrative issue in that finding, booking and retaining appropriate space is an issue that consumes an inordinate amount of our staff’s time.

Q. What has been driving growth in the Faculty of Education (faculty, programs, centers, external sites, international programs, premium fee programs, etc.)? Under current conditions of economic constraint, what should now drive our growth and development? How do we consolidate and how do we decide where and what to cut back?

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 167

A. There is increasing demand from new and on-going international partners for our international graduate programs and short-term, non-credit programs. These partners approach us as a result of the reputation that we have built regarding the quality and integrity of our programs. As part of the internationalization of the Faculty of Education, it is our mandate to provide academically accountable and culturally meaningful programs. The Faculty has a mission and vision statement. A common plan, developed and agreed to by the Faculty in support of the mission and vision, should provide direction when it comes to new program growth, consolidation, and cutbacks. These decisions should not be made haphazardly.

Q. As an interdisciplinary faculty seeking to respond to the needs of the diverse communities we serve, how well have we maintained and enhanced the quality of our scholarship, teaching, research and academic programming?

A. For both our international graduate and short-term, non-credit professional programs, students’ feedback of the programs is vital to the faculty and staff responsible for these programs. The coordinating and instructional teams responsible for these programs do critical evaluations which result in program revisions and improvements. For the international graduate program, revisions are brought to the Graduate Programs Committee for review and approval. Research papers have been presented at conferences and published in international journals.

Q. How can we, in future, best respond to these demands while maintaining the character, quality and integrity of curriculum, pedagogy, research and scholarship that has distinguished our faculty? The Faculty of Education is committed to the internationalization of the Faculty through various activities within all Program Areas. Internationalization recognizes that our Faculty’s work is situated internationally and has global/local connections and opportunities. The Faculty of Education’s International Programs have particular responsibilities to develop cross-cultural awareness, to internationalize curricula, to educate local and international students at all levels of study, to foster research and teaching in internationalization and global issues, to work with partners in other countries in a worldwide community of scholars and practitioners. International Programs must continue its role to complement the work of faculty members and program areas interested in pursuing international initiatives, e.g. Sandra Vamos’ initiatives in health education; the Imaginative Education Research Group’s initiatives with Australia; Stephen Smith and Professional Development Program’s research initiatives in Oaxaca, Mexico, etc. We must work collectively towards a common plan that endorses the principles of quality and integrity of curriculum, pedagogy, research and scholarship. The selection of the appropriate model of delivery and program activity is a critical academic and administrative decision. International participants and SFU personnel must collaboratively consider the instructional content and its relevance to the cultural and education context of the country involved. The international participants also examine what the appropriate balance might be regarding SFU-hosted course work with on-site instructional delivery and with distance education programming. Administrative issues such as staffing capacity, budget considerations and space availability also inform the final decision by the appropriate Director and Programs Committee at all credit based programs and the Director of International Initiatives (non-credit programs and offshore consultancies), the Executive regarding the endorsement and approval of these programs, and the Faculty members involved in the deliveries of these international focused programs. All of the Faculty of Education’s international activities are assessed first and foremost in terms of their educational quality, academic accountability and financial viability. Consequently, as the Faculty continues its academic planning, it is important to examine how each of the program areas of the Faculty may continue to incorporate the internationalization of its activities, within the Faculty’s future academic plan.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 168 12.4 Graduate Programs on “Focus Questions”

Graduate Programs’ Responses to Focus Questions Set One:

Question #1 How can we as a Faculty ensure coherence and integrity and purposeful direction while responding effectively to the challenges and opportunities involved in working across multiple sites, while contending with the following specific issues:  Communications across campuses  Administrative and support staff  Space  Resources  Technology  Governance  Faculty and program locations -liaison staff between sites; may need to have an office in both sites and divide time between both sites; eg. need liaison between GP office at Burnaby and staff at Surrey -share minutes of meetings in both locations

Question #2 a. What has been driving growth in the Faculty of Education (faculty, programs, centers, external sites, international programs, premium fee programs, etc)?

•demographics, enrollment, faculty numbers increasing, new programs

•Under current conditions of economic constraint, what should now drive our growth and development? How do we consolidate and how do we decide where and what to cut back?

•reduce enrollment; reduce new faculty hires; move towards premium fee programs where possible

Question 3 As an interdisciplinary faculty seeking to engage responsively to the needs of the diverse communities we serve, how well have we maintained and enhanced the quality of our scholarship, teaching, research and academic programming?

•not sure

Question #4 How can we, in the future, best respond to these demands while maintaining the character, quality, and integrity of curriculum, pedagogy, research, and scholarship that has distinguished our faculty?

•ROC initiatives based on external review has made a big difference •hire more full professors to raise academic status •seek out more grant opportunities •acknowledge/celebrate faculty/staff accomplishments

Set Two:

Question #1  Communications across campuses We started to have monthly meetings with the counselling staff, and mostly communicate via email. We have two people situated in Surrey –Patrice and Daria (Term lecturer), and two in Burnaby – Natalee and me (GFA)  Administrative and support staff

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 169 Again, I think just meetings and emails.  Space We all seem to have worked out sufficient spaces for now.  Resources Might be better to check with Patrice and Natalee on this.  Technology

This has been an ongoing challenge – we use videotaping to teach counselling skills and to provide feedback in supervision to the practicum students. Most of the equipment in the cet is outdated or in various need of repair. We also share the equipment with the PDP program, so there is a bit of juggling to do. You may want to check with Patrice and Natalee about foreseeable equipment needs since the program is changing to a clinic/practicum model.  Governance  Faculty and program locations

Question #2 There is greater demand for higher education, and many programs have changed or expanded to meet these needs. Perhaps some clarity on common goals and directions for the Education department might help to clarify what items are of most importance.

Question # 3 This is a difficult question. It depends on what knowledge is of most worth to us and how this knowledge addresses (or doesn’t address) diversity issues.

Question #4 I think with change, we need to evolve, adapt,etc. Again, what is the vision and how will these aspects of scholarship play out?

Set Three: Educational Leadership Answers prepared and submitted by: Geoff Madoc-Jones and Debbie Pruner MEd & EdD Graduate Programs (Premium fee) Surrey February 4, 2008

Question #1 Communication We need an action plan that seeks to foster communication both horizontally and vertically within the organization. It requires both an open and collaborative atmosphere, a clearly understood sense of purpose with unambiguous lines of authority and responsibility. Suggestions: · Utilize tri-level media communications resources: conference calls, video-conferencing and in person interactions to facilitate discussions that are/or can be made available to all people on all campuses. · Full faculty participation needs to be a priority and this can be done easily given the proper technology. · Continue cross campus social events and activities. · Continue practice of having regular staff retreats, consider collaborative retreats as well. · Continue office administration meetings - held one hour prior to the regular GPC meeting: this includes management staff from all FOE Grad Programs including FP and OFFA representation. · Consider implementing a regular cross campus graduate support staff meeting (which can be done via video conferencing or iChat) but prefer to meet in person. · Consider alternating meetings on both campuses where applicable. · Ensure standardization of document or written work; material produced that emerges from any office in the FOE, contains both graphic standards and clear provenance.

Admin and support staff: – Common and regular training, systems and software skill upgrade

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 170 – monthly meetings between connected units – sharing the responsibilities of planning the meetings and alternating campuses where possible. – Develop attitudes of collaborative work teams by sharing our most successful ideas/systems etc. with all units. – Utilize the expertise that exists across the faculty – Create a problem solving committee - how to best improve practices and procedures across FOE. – Allow cross-training and possibility of sharing staffing resources in areas where workload is problematic/heavy and others are not. All the while keeping in line with regulatory policies. – Utilize field expertise where best suited (keep in mind that what may take unskilled staff many hours to produce could take a field expert a fraction of the time). Keep cost analysis in mind when assessing staffing and resources.

Space: Utilize the space we have in an efficient and cost effective manner. What is the role of space now in an electronic era – where telecommuting and working from home is commonplace. Space should be allocated in relation to community and physical involvement. Use it or lose it.

Resources: The creation of social and intellectual capital must be integrated as part of a resource generation model.

Technology: Look at our current state of technology, how, when and where it is used. We must look proactively ahead in order to keep ahead and competitive with the fast pace of change with hardware, software and other computer and equipment applications. IE: We have the ability to video conf out of Surrey but Burnaby is behind in the technology, so our capacity to utilize this technology is handicapped. Spend the money here and not on mileage and time spent in actual commuting.

Governance: Should be a combination of strong central control with devolved autonomy.

Faculty and Program location: As much as possible the faculty unity (groups of programs) should be upheld. Faculty should not be isolated from the majority of their program colleagues.

Question #2 The legitimate need and demand for graduate programs in the field of education. The rate of growth is escalating due to the credentializing movement but the majority is to do with the complexity in the field, K-12 and in post secondary institutions. A key element to all this development is the necessity of including empirical research and critical inquiry as part of all programs and the general system. We must proceed as both a research and practice professional based unit. What needs to be maintained is the virtuous circle where development, revenue and academic programs co-exist in a positive sustainable manner. It is the creation of these systems; interactive, interdependent, critical and yet responsive that should be our goal. These will develop sufficient resources for their sustainability and thus the faculty will be able to protect and nourish its traditional areas of responsibility, while responding to a complex globalizing world and attract financial resources as well. This is what is known as at SFU Surrey as “doing well and doing good” at the same time. (GM-J)

Question #3 This issue of a interdisciplinary faculty in a pluralistic society with changing demands upon its services requires constant attention of the quality of the administration, teaching scholarship and research. This means that some of the established patterns of authority and identity held on the part of faculty may not be conducive to these new kinds of arrangements and challenges. What is needed is the creation of mutually supportive teams of academic, developers, administrative and support staff who will be able to both operate in the highly volatile world of immediate demand for academic services while also carrying out long-term sustainable/traditional academic work.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 171 The MEd and EdD in particular play a key role in the development of the communities that exist south of the Fraser River from Delta to Chilliwack put specifically Surrey. This relationship is based on the principal of mutual benefit and interest.

Question #4 In relation to this question the most important matters as alluded to in answer 3 are at the system level of the organization. Only by creating new kinds of integrated, creative units, will the faculty be able to meet the demands of the future, while carrying out its traditional roles through the close working relationships developed between faculty, management and support staff as well as students and other differentiated. This must include the recruitment of adjuncts and the formation of centres.

Set Four

Question #1 A. Communication:

In the last year GP has worked extensively to improve both internal and external communication. Internal communication consists of how GP is effectively engaging students, staff and faculty whereas external communication is how GP is presenting itself to the general public and to prospective students. The first section shall discuss internal communication and recent developments in this area.

1 - Internal Communications (i). Students Internal communication with students has focused on how to better serve the growing student population and streamline the transmission of pertinent information through a compulsory listserve ([email protected]). This listserve provides information on new university policies, library information, upcoming scholarships and awards, important dead line dates, conference announcements, etc… The listserve has served to bridge the communication gap with students and there has been positive feedback from students on the information being helpful.

GP has also worked closely with the Education Graduate Student Association (EGSA) to insure that students’ needs are addressed readily and promptly where possible. Activities where GP has supported EGSA have included, but have not been limited to, supporting the launch of Education students e-journal last May, providing the conference stipend of 400.00 that goes out as a EGSA draw to students presenting at conferences, and also addressing others concerns dealing with course changes and rescheduling, etc... On the whole, the relationship with EGSA has been strengthened in the last few years. It currently has two members sitting on GPC.

(ii) Academic Coordinators A change in name to Academic Coordinators has enhanced the academic responsibilities of Program Coordinators. To further clarify this role and ensure there is responsive communication with ACs, GP in the last year has established a once a semester Coordinators’ meeting. This is to ensure that as the academic liaisons for their programs, ACs were in the know on new academic developments from the Education Executive, the Dean of Graduate Studies, GP and could also share information amongst themselves for support and program enhancement.

(iii).Administration and Support Staff Administrative and Support staff meets regularly every two weeks and the meeting are attended by both GP management and CUPE staff. The meetings again are to ensure that communication is timely and also that any new developments from the Dean of Graduate Studies are discussed and clarified where needed. These are also times to communication new policies both within the FOE and the larger SFU community.

(iv).Surrey Campus

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 172 In January of 2007, GP welcomed their extension to Surrey Campus with the move of Off campus Programs. However, communication with the Surrey campus has proved to be a challenge. There is a feeling among staff in Surrey of being disconnected from the Burnaby campus, often ending in a lot of delayed communication ending in a lot frustration. Burnaby still being the main campus does not seem to share these same feelings. Regular meetings with the Surrey staff though planned have not consistently been kept or not given the priority they should until matters of great urgency arise. These meetings at least between Management of Surrey and Burnaby need to be consolidated and given great importance.

We also need to look into multiple campus organizational models from other SFU departments e.g. Business that have done this for years of building bridges and community between the similar yet at the same time distinct campuses. Having strong communication mechanism with Surrey is very important for several reasons. FOE has a remarkable reputation of developing innovative programs, but needs to do more in nurturing relationships with the people in these new programs if we are to prevent feelings of isolation and of being marginalized. The lack of attention to this is that eventually Surrey off campus programs will evolve on their own without any connection to Burnaby, which will affect our credibility as a unit and to the general public. Already we understand that there is a lot of confusion about our programs already by the public and the less we emphasize our differences in location strive at working collaboratively, the better we shall be.

2. External Communication GP has been working closely with the Communication office in the Dean’s office to better promote its programs and also to be connected with other units in the FOE. GP has been involved in hosting the coffee open house is a good community builder because it forces people from other units to come in. In the future would like to see more of these happen as they help to bring people out and know who is who in FOE.

Other external communication has been developing promotional posters using the new SFU brand but at the same time highlight the values of GP as a unit and the unique emphasis of the different programs. The other piece has been making our website a one-stop-shop for all in search of information: current and prospective students, staff, faculty and the general public. We are also working on how to best present a unified yet distinct image of the two campuses on our website.

In general, for the future we need to be more proactive in promoting our programs as the popular myth of “we shall build” is no longer sustainable by looking at our application numbers for there could be a possibility that “they might not come”. Also we would like to be able to competitive by attracting the best students.

B. Administrative and Support Staff (APSA & CUPE) Currently GP has a full 4.75 CUPE continuing staff. This is a point of great celebration after a period of temporary staffing while continuing staff were on prolonged leaves of absence or secondment to other positions. With the staffing now stable, CUPE staff is concerned with the work loads that have gone up with the increased student enrollments. This is not only in GP, but is a campus wide concern, that over the years, more has been added on with very little of the previous responsibilities taken off the work loads. There is need to evaluate this more succinctly to ensure that current work loads are aligned with the strategic goals of the unit and to download work that does not contribute to the current goals. Also where possible to evaluate if some of the practices can be converted and done electronically for example the filing of forms so that staff are left to do the work that only they can do. Other concerns of work load have come from using two data systems: SIMS and Filemaker. In the future it would be helpful to consolidate these databases to minimize work loads.

There have also been concerns among CUPE staff on having their positions re-evaluated by HR. At the moment only one has been done where the Grad. Sec for doctoral programs was upgraded from a Grade 6 to a 7. Having the other position re-evaluated would ensure we do not loose good staff to better paying positions elsewhere on campus. However in the light of current budgetary restraints this might not be of high priority right now.

A new APSA position was created and filled as of 2006 November to handle special projects and perform liaising tasks for GP under the direction of the Director. This position has been responsible for a completing a

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 173 variety of programs and also looking more at how we can better support students. The other APSA position is operational in nature and is responsible for supervision of CUPE staff, policies, student awards, budgets, student scholarships and Sessional instructor contracts.

C. Space The issue of space in GP is of great concern. As pointed out, GP program has grown exponentially over the years and still retains the same spacing that had more than twenty years ago. As a result, GP office is overcrowded and staff sit behind piles of paper that often act as barriers between them and the students when they come in. Due to the overcrowding, the noise level in the office is very high culminating into escalating stress levels as staff cannot effectively concentrate on their work. Adding to this stress, staff is concerned and anxious as to how they shall function with the creation of another office within the already constrained space this coming May. This will definitely compromise the work quality of GP.

The distribution of space is in FOE therefore needs immediate attention and the manner in which space is allocated needs to be reflective of the integrity and respect in which FOE regards its support staff. At the moment as far as space goes, support staff seem to be having the raw end of the deal.

D. Resources There is often very limited information on budget planning and allocation. More open discussions on resource allocation are required from both the Dean’s office and the GP Management. A breakdown of budgetary items should be looked at before final decisions are made. Budget planning should not be limited to a few to the exclusion of others. All need to be empowered by becoming involved in this process.

E. Technology This is not been an issue. Staff feels that they have the needed technology although most of them would like to be trained to enhance their skills. However, most of these courses on using software and databases, originally offered through Computing Services are no longer available and the CET staff with the current restructuring seems to be very busy to put on such workshops. Hopefully in the future this will be given some consideration.

F. Governance Generally ASPA and CUPE staff in GP are satisfied with the Governance within their own unit. Most of their concerns are addressed and taken seriously. However, there seems to be a distance between GP and the Dean’s office. As FOE grows, it is important that the Governance structures proactively engage all staff at all levels. Communication and information (especially on strategic goals and objectives) from the Dean’s office is not available to all the staff and at times Management seems to be inaccessible when staff member have questions or concerns regarding FOE policies. Posting minute summaries on a shared server might be a way to go or a monthly newsletter to circulate these.

It might be worth mentioning that communication within FOE is also often hindered by the highly stratified class culture with Faculty members in the top strata, APSA in the middle and CUPE at the bottom. We need visionary leadership to work at changing such an engrained class culture if we are to eliminate some of the apathy so at to build a positive and cohesive community.

Question #2

A. Growth 1. Programs (On Campus Programs) (i). PhD Programs GP has grown in both its on campus and off campus programs. There have a several new programs at the PhD level, a growth was mandated by the Dean- [FOE 3 year strategic plan???.] If the Faculty of Education is to be a first class faculty, there was a vision to increase the number of PhD programs provided and the enrollment of students in these programs. New PhD programs starting as of 2007 are: CTI: Philosophy of Education Educational Technology and Leadership

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 174 Language, Culture and Literacies (2008 Sept start)

There has been a positive response towards these programs indicated through the high student applications received and the admissions into the program.

(ii). Masters & MEd. Programs In the Med. growth has been externally driven by teachers and School districts providing incentives for teachers to have a Master’s Degree. GP has also shifted by providing specific programs tailored to specific students needs. The HEPA program is one of such programs that seek to attract students in the Education Health and Physical Education. The Inclusion and Diversity program is currently being reviewed so as to give it a particular scope and focus that would again meet students’ needs.

(iii). Growth in Faculty and Sessionals

(iv). Administrative Staff

(v). CUPE Staff [numbers from Karen and to include responsibilities if necessary]

B. Current Budgetary Constraints

GP has overreached its targets as set three years ago and times of fiscal constraints perhaps will help address sustainability as well as consolidation of programs. Building and expanding at times means that some aspects within the organization are not as readily care for as they should. So this is an opportune time for GP:

· To review who are as a Unit, our strategic goals and how the entire office is functioning in relation to all the other GP components, what is working and what is not? Through this exercise we can then come to an understanding on what needs to be cut from our budgets. Any cuts in the budget should be done in the spirit of honesty, transparency and openness.

· We need to do more in the area of student outreach, to find out their concerns are and also increase graduating rates particularly in the PhD. This mainly requires an investment of time and dedication on our part to develop these relationships and the moment there is human resources that can be focused on this.

· For GP it will mean a time to consolidate and streamline all our activities to our strategic goals in order to minimize over extending ourselves and concentrate on those things that we are good at. [same point as above]

· Merging certain practices with other GP program units so that we can share resources.

· Utilizing and drawing from the wealth of expertise within our faculty especially in the area of policy transformation to help us evaluate our programs and develop practices that are sustainable over time.

· Working collaboratively and deliberately seeking out partnerships be they within FOE or external. This might even mean seeking external funding from organizations or corporations that reflect our objectives and values.

· Constraints for GP will therefore mean “thinking out to the box” and being creative, empowering both staff and faculty to generate solutions through support, increased participation and active listening.

Question 3

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 175 GP is committed to ensuring that it addresses the diverse needs both within the province and internationally. The capacity of our programs is reflective of our responsiveness to diverse communities that surround us. This can easily be broken down in the following categories.

· Local Communities in BC · French Speaking Communities · Teaching English/French as a Second Language · Diversity and Inclusion program · International Programs

A. Local Communities in BC

The landmark of GP has been its responsiveness to the diverse community needs in the Lower Mainland and all over the province. Part of the GP legacy has been its ability to go into isolated communities and work with them to build up their academic ability and empower these communities to engage in research that will address issues within their communities. Through such capacity building practices, has help exposed our faculty to diverse world views and enabled to become better informed about the people in our locale. The interaction with diverse communities has allowed both students and faculty to discover and therefore insert new wisdom/ diverse perspectives into their scholarly work, to deepened understanding. Ultimately, working in diverse communities in BC has help us add ground breaking research and enabled GP to contribute positively to a better collective and empathetic understanding of who are as human beings.

st [will need to mention our programs that are being taught among 1 nations communities in BC], how about our work with continuing education???? Adult learners. A lot of reference to the community based programs and the EDD]

B. French Speaking Communities GP has also worked closely with the French program to ensure that GP responds to the educational needs of teachers teaching in the BC French Educational system. The MEd French Program with enrollments every two years aims at addressing the growing need for scholar and academic advancement in the French speaking community [insert something from Francophone office].

C. Teaching English/French as a Second Language Our programs in English as a Second Language look at effective ways of engaging students whose first language in not English.

D. Diversity and Inclusion [notes from this program]

E. International Students GP also recognizes it role in internationalization and how it is important to also engage diverse societies in order to cultivate intercultural understanding. The TLC program is a good another example of the international flavour that GP seeks to cultivates. This program runs through the International Programs. . [refer to notes from Ian].

In addition, Education Graduate programs are also open to applicants from all over the world. Every year, GP recruits international students into its programs.

Question #4 How can we, in the future, best respond to these demands while maintaining the character, quality, and integrity of curriculum, pedagogy, research, and scholarship that has distinguished our faculty?

In order to respond to external demands, budget constraints and at the same time maintain the quality of in curriculum, pedagogy, research and scholarship, GP will do the following:

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 176 · Work closely with faculty and staff to find alternative funding options that will enable them to pursue research within the disciples. Look at models that will facilitate guaranteed funding through RAs, TM or TAs for newly recruited students who need it. At the same time provide on-going orientation in the form of workshops, socials, etc… to ensure retention and persistence of graduate students. Similarly to offer newly hired faculty transitional support whether it is being mentored by Senior Faculty or planning GP occasional meetings to listen to their concerns.

· Encourage collaborative models of course delivery so that staff can learn and enhance each other. Look at encouraging team teaching enhance program quality and integrity.

· Working in collaboration with EGSA to enhance the quality and visibility of the Education Students e- journal. Evaluate the mechanism that it will need to bring this journal to a reputable student journal in the education industry.

· Highlight through media or by working with Communication office the scholarly and academic achievements of both our faculty and students. Provide space to show case published journals not only through the website, but using other mediums within the university and in the larger community.

· In addition make research published by our faculty assessable to the general public through presentations at community forums, schools, in the library, etc…

· Encourage Academic coordinators to take on more ownership of curriculum quality and to constantly audit courses within their program areas to ensure sound pedagogy, as well as inserting new frameworks into their scholarship to meet the evolving needs of students and research.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 177 13. Charting a Course: The Road Ahead?

In all the world there is only one Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education. The origins and traditions— and lack of tradition at this still new university—have conspired to shape this Faculty in unique ways. This novelty is a strength. Long may it be preserved.

The unusual attributes of the “radical campus’s” Faculty of Education include its non-departmental structure, its differentiated staffing model, its venturousness in research and scholarship, its willingness to admit unconventionally prepared teacher and graduate candidates, its four-course PhD in curriculum theory and implementation, its five continuous hour long graduate courses, its zeal for spreading the delivery of its coursework across the vastness of western Canada, and the responsiveness of its graduate programming to the educators of British Columbia. Differentiated staffing—to single out one innovation—has led to a continually renewing Professional Development Program whose “heavy lifting” of supervision and much of its instruction have been carefully acquitted by generations of select BC teachers, competitively selected for terms of up to two years as faculty associates. Differentiated staffing has also encouraged the development of our highly acclaimed Field Programs: cooperatively delivered professional development in which cohorts of teachers are advanced in their effectiveness by teams of faculty, master teachers, and other dedicated personnel.

Non-departmentalization has fostered some remarkable faculty careers marked by the reinvention of scholars beyond their original disciplinary lines. For a destination campus such as SFU, such flexibility in professional redefinition has allowed our numerous long-term faculty to renew themselves and contribute in novel ways to our programs.

The university’s expanding commitment to “Thinking of the World” is a ready match for FOE’s commitment to delivering its programs where a need is identified, as well as to welcoming students and faculty from all the earth’s corners. Our willingness to consider unconventional preparation on the way to our credentials has also served to open doors for students who wish to join us, particularly those who serve the north.

Many friends and supporters of the Faculty hope the road ahead retains the best of our unique qualities and that this Faculty does not become more similar to well-established norms. There is a need for the alternatives we provide. Preserving the best of our differences takes vigilance and will since there are economic factors as well as sociological ones that mobilize toward conformity. Recently, for example, we have been challenged by the rising costs of seconded teachers not being funded by ministry formulas. A simple fix would be to displace these proven contemporary teachers with sessional instructors, teaching assistants, or retired teachers. These conventional solutions would solve a budget problem at the cost of one of our powerful pedagogical policies.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 178 Another example of the spectre of conformity is the pressure to departmentalize the Faculty. One sees this idea in the 2001 external review as well as its rejection by the team of visitors. Departmentalization is the norm in Faculties and it interacts with loyalty to disciplines and subdisciplines in academic life. The “compelling” logic of departmentalization also underlies movement away from the self-contained classroom in public schools. Such fragmentation and specialization may in many cases be necessary, but its costs should not be overlooked. These include the inability of faculty to continually redefine themselves within the overall field of education, the redirection of energy to departments rather than our programs which are necessarily interdisciplinary, the artificial and often counterproductive dynamics that are created among small subdisciplinary groups that are linked within departments, the costs of another layer of administrative operations, the loss of a unified identity that departmentalization creates with the public and with faculty members and staff.

If we are true to the best elements of our heritage and resist the drift toward conformity, we can resolve the tensions created by innovations such as differentiated staffing and nondepartmentalization. With respect to departments, to cite a case in point, we have launched informal processes of consultation with identifiable subgroups in the Faculty who have legitimate subdisciplinary loyalties that they wish to be honoured. The appointments process has been redesigned to heighten the voices of cognate faculty. The appointments process has also introduced a consultative process to identify new faculty lines through a proposal process that begins with faculty so that program demands do not overshadow disciplinary balance and redefinition. Recently a case of prioritization in hiring was thrown to a subdisciplinary group in order to preserve the integrity of their staffing with respect to graduate studies. The alternative would have been to make the decision based on program or all-Faculty needs, but the system in place is flexible enough to consult in this other, as specified, manner. Under current consideration is an additional review for retention, tenure, promotion and salary decisions that would invite the input to the Faculty RTP Committee of subdisciplinary peers--much in the manner we consult external reviewers. Such practices can introduce desirable specialized influence as the Faculty grows and do so without shattering the overall unity of the whole.

At the same time we have fostered new lines of communication among faculty with common declared interests who are not necessarily linked by conventional subdisciplines. Out of this strategy a new set of graduate programs has emerged in language, literacy and culture. Faculty participants span a number of identifiable specializations such as ELL, literacy, linguistics, multicultural education, etc. By adding non- binding, fluid complexity to our intrafaculty identifications we can foster linkages that departments would mobilize against. One hopes such targeted and reflective problem-solving lies on the road ahead.

There a number of challenges we can identify for the future. One, for example, is a more deliberate pursuit of endowment funds that will better support graduate students, endowed chairs, and innovation in research. Both in advancement and communication groundwork has been laid for new efforts in this direction.

We can also see that we have never fully completed the linkage between our research skills and continuous improvement in our own curriculum and instruction. Particularly in our programs that are oriented to preservice and inservice teachers, much more could be done to advance the quality of what we do and to document the best of our accomplishments.

In the past two years we have made some clear strides in building a culture of research and scholarship and increasing our capacity in these areas. Our infrastructure in this area has been matched by the creative application of discretionary funds to these purposes. Still lacking is an intramural intellectual climate to maximize the potentiality of our faculty members as scholars and researchers. A recent example of how effective such communication can be is the cluster of inquiry emerging in educational neuroscience around our new educational neuroscience laboratory, the ENGRAMMETRON.

We could do outreach on a larger scale. Clinics, professional development schools, projects in the community can all support research while they do good work. The forthcoming Simon Fraser Elementary School of Burnaby promises to offer such opportunities as does our Counseling Centre, an internship site that is being created in cooperation with the Surrey School Board.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 179 . . . . The foundation .of all we do as a faculty is a sense of trust and common purpose among us. We have now achieved a critical mass in terms of numbers of faculty and students that allows us as a faculty to make a mark as an institution, not just as high-achieving individuals. If our internal professional relationships are characterized by strife and competition, and if we cannot agree to select talented leaders and allow them to lead, then we shall follow the fate of so many academic entities: individual stars will shine, but no great institutional achievement will arise. The opportunity to achieve far beyond the norm lies in this Faculty’s ability to once again break convention and not follow the common academic path of egoistic division and disharmony. The road ahead should be a common road, born of enlightened self-interest and conceived in such a way that there is room for all of us to travel it and prosper. This is a hope that can inspire our work.

Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education 180

Load more

  180

Copy Link